text:
In January, 1979, I started as a Freshman at the University of Florida in Gainesville. I'd missed the fall registration, but not the fall football season, having driven the five hours up from my home in Miami on several occasions to watch Gator home games. That had been the last of Doug Dickey's typical 6-5 or 5-6 years, and a new head coach, Charley Pell, was coming from Clemson to lead us into the Promised Land.
We were due. We were, in fact, long, long overdue. UF is a big school, and the state of Florida a gold mine of high school talent. But in nearly a hundred years, the Gators had never won so much as a conference championship. It was goddam humiliating, is what it was. Anyway, that was about to end with the '79 season. We had orange and blue bumper stickers shouting GIVE 'EM HELL, PELL! in anticipation of the Great Man's arrival. I bought ten of them, and I didn't even own a car.
Things were going to be different now. Our time had come at last.
I remember following the band into the stadium for the home opener on that cool, crisp, September afternoon. I was grinning like a lark, and why not? I was free, young, and truly independent for the first time in my life, walking a beautiful campus on a perfect fall day, surrounded by the most gorgeous women on planet earth.
Okay, so we lost. That happens. New coach.
Next was a night game against Georgia Tech. A tie. That tie was the high point of the season.
We lost again. And again. And again.
But we kept playing. We lost again. Again. Again.
So there I sat at the end of the season, cold in my orange and blue sweatshirt, looking down at my soon to be 0-10-1 Gators facing the soon to be 12-0 National Championship Alabama Crimson Tide. Down 40-0 in the fourth quarter, we got an interception, then put in a third-string quarterback who made a first down – on his first play!
By God, there was still time to win this thing!
Actually, no. There wasn't. As we walked out into the parking lot, I looked around at the cars in the parking lot. Lots of folks had taken scissors to their GIVE 'EM HELL, PELL! bumper stickers. Most of the cars now had HELL, GIVE 'EM PELL! on the chrome.
I went back to Gainesville to do a sketch comedy show in 1992. This time things really had changed. While I had been in LA, a former Florida QB and Heisman Trophy winner named Steve Spurrier had come home, and, like Captain Kirk in the Genesis Cave, he did not like to lose. And so, they didn't. He took us from perennial losers, doormats, laughing stocks -- to SEC champs four years in a row.
And then, one January night in 1997, 18 years to the day after I first landed in Gainesville, I was sitting in Ashley's Pub watching my Florida Gators play our arch-rivals from Florida State for the National Championship. They'd beaten us, by three points, earlier in the year – our only loss. They had beaten us time and time again. I hated them.
It was close at first. But by the end of the third quarter we started to pull away, and when Danny Wuerffel dove into the corner of the end zone in the 4th we knew we had it. I don't remember much about the rest of the night there, other than hugging everybody in sight and grinning like the Joker.
I drove up to University Avenue and parked the car. Traffic was completely stopped. Everyone in the city was on that street – everyone. People were dancing, hugging, weeping, and beeping their horns continuously.
Not this time, baby! Not this time! Not today!
I can't describe to you what that felt like that night. You really did have to be there, I guess. Not only did you have to be there, you had to know the history, the frustration, the humiliation and the almost unendurable, relentless disappointment that had been part of being a Gator fan for so many years.
You could have watched it on TV, but you'll never know what it was like to have that grin branded on your face, to walk up to homeless people and 85 year-old alumni and street thugs and kids and adults and everyone, everyone deliriously happy and dancing and hugging each other and just filled with such joy and elation and community. We had suffered together, lost together, come back year after year after year through endless defeats and dreams snatched away right under our noses, hoping together, and now, finally, this night had come. Next Year was here, at last.
I was honored to have done the video tribute to the team a few weeks later, in a celebration that drew 65,000 to the stadium just to say thank you. And when Steve Spurrier got on stage and said, "This one's for all those Gator fans up in heaven," I remember thinking, God, if that is not the corniest thing I've ever heard before a giant sob leapt out of me and I looked up at 60,000 people crying like babies.
Just like me.
Now it is worse than folly to compare this to the feeling on the streets of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, when the statue came down and it began to dawn on Iraqis that the son of a bitch was really, truly gone. It is an insipid, indeed, an insulting comparison.
So why did I make it? Well, because it's all I've got. And that, in a strange and wonderful way, is exactly the point I want to make. For we have created a society so long immune to fear and repression, a safe and free and prosperous haven so encompassing that the deepest sense of liberation and victory that this American ever got to experience was when my college team won a stupid football game against the guys up the street.
We have been so safe, and so free, for so long, that it has warped our sense of history and human nature. It is, of course, a trade I am happy to make, but this isolation from the true horror and depravity that are everyday experiences in many parts of the world has embedded in it, like a particularly lethal virus, the seeds of our own destruction. And it is this threat, much more than that from fundamentalist Islam and its organs of terror, that we must look at – closely, and deeply, and often.
I believe that many of those who opposed the war did so because they simply could not -- or in many cases would not – imagine what life under real oppression is like. Remember, these are the people who say, and seem to believe, that we in the US live in a police state, under a murdering dictator, where propaganda is spoon-fed to us like willing idiots and political opposition is crushed mercilessly.
If you say such things long enough, and you spend all your time in the company of similarly tinfoil-hatted comrades, then you actually begin to believe that life in Baghdad under Saddam Hussein wasn't that much worse than life in Berkeley under the racist, election-stealing, Wellstone-murdering, Earth-destroying Republikkkan administration.
This nation has been for many decades under direct and coordinated attack by fanatics whose failure to gain respect and attention through the force of their arguments have turned their level of rhetoric to such a shrill and hysterical pitch that years of it have seemingly driven some of them quite insane -- insane to the degree that they cannot see that acid baths, state rapists, children's prisons and daily torture and execution are not mere rhetorical flourishes -- roughly equivalent to hanging chads and bulldozed Dixie Chicks CD's -- but a desperate and ever-present reality. They did everything in their power to deny this reality, these Champions of Compassion, and Not In Their Name did these daily horrors come to an end. That is what six decades of freedom, security, tolerance and prosperity will do to some people: isolate them from the brutal reality of horror and torture to the degree that "evil" must be accompanied by sneer quotes and the motives of 300 million free and decent people are suspect while those of psychopathic mass murderers are not.
We can all agree that a campaign of unrestricted Islamicist terror poses a serious and immediate threat to this country. The fact is, given the means, these people could hurt us very, very badly, and that threat continues to be addressed.
But I am interested in a much deeper and more dangerous threat. This threat can not only hurt America; this threat can kill America. I don't say such things lightly. But this threat is so subtle, and so pernicious, that it is going to take us a while just to be able to fully identify it. Once we go to the trouble of doing so, however, I think you'll agree that much of what we have seen in the months since 9/11 will become much clearer.
We stand in direct opposition to forces who despise America because America offers a completely different theory not only of government, but of people, human beings. They have a theory, widely and loudly promoted, of who we are and what we represent. Many of these people – college professors, politicians, students, actors – are masters of rhetoric. They get paid to talk and lecture. It is a survival skill. It is what they do.
We see America one way; they see it completely differently. These ideas are at war, and the stakes are incalculably high for the future of America and the people of the world. This is the war we need to turn our eyes to.
As long as the true nature of America remained in the rhetorical realm, these people held an enormous advantage in the battle for our country's soul and its future. However, the crucible of war has put these two deeply conflicting theories of America and her people into a situation where one theory – ours or theirs – would be tested in the real world. It was, in fact, a sort of laboratory experiment on who is right and who is wrong. It transcended rhetoric, because it generated evidence.
Those who hate and oppose America, and what she represents to ourselves and to the world, feared this very, very greatly, and with good reason, as we shall see. They did everything in their combined power to prevent this challenge, this test of our conflicting visions. Everything in their power. Reality intruding into the living rooms of the world on a daily basis is a mortal threat to certain rhetorical positions that are at odds with reality, because a picture really is worth a thousand words, and at 30 frames, 30 pictures a second, live video can write entire encyclopedias in a very short time indeed.
What we have seen in Iraq is a Victory so large and so important that it dwarfs the spectacular military success in the sands of Mesopotamia.
It is nothing less than the remaking of the political, moral and social landscape that will bear dividends for freedom deep into the coming century. It was a test, and a vindication, of a way of looking at this new and shadowy world we face, and perhaps greatest of all, it is a rebirth and restoration of American might on the side of the angels, where it has always belonged and which we have paid a terrible price for forgetting during these dark and desperate decades of twilight struggles around the margins of the world.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about this victory, and the magnitude of it has beaten me down time and again. We can perhaps only begin to get a handle on it when we step back. Way back. Way, waaaaaaaaaay back.
So come, let us reason a little…
If we look at human behavior through the long, sharp and cold lens of science, we have a limited number of data sets from which to choose. It would be nice if we could compare our experiences with those of other species, and perhaps some day we will. But for now, we are limited by our own history, and so there we must go.
We humans have existed in our modern form for roundabout a hundred thousand years or so…a thousand centuries, more or less, or roughly a hundred times the distance from the Norman Invasion of Britain in 1066 to the moon landing, the internet and the cell phone.
Throughout about ninety-three of those one hundred millennia, life was pretty much the same. You know the drill: Hunt. Gather. Repeat.
But about seven thousand years ago, in the fertile land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers – Mesopotamia means "the land between the rivers" —people began to realize that certain grasses and crops could be planted and harvested every year; indeed, enough food was made available by this radical idea that people no longer had to roam from one place to another, hunting and gathering. What's more, there was now so much food that it no longer took everyone working pretty much full time just to stay fed. That meant free time, and that meant specialization: basket weavers, spear makers, architects, stone masons, artists, etc. And that, taken together, has come under the banner Civilization, and civilization started right there, where on modern maps you can find the word IRAQ.
So, to recap: for ninety-three millennia: nothing much new, although the whole fire thing made quite a splash at the time. After the invention of agriculture, writing, law and the wheel, however – all in Iraq – things began to pick up.
But with civilization came, for the first time, really large numbers of humans living in the same area, and something had to be done to keep order. And so these brilliant and creative Mesopotamians invented yet another of the wonders in the human toolbox: they invented government, and the state. It is to their great credit that these ancient Iraqis, even at the very dawn of civilization, recognized the danger in putting the power of so many harnessed lives into the hands of a chief. King Hammurabi, a just and wise ruler, developed a code of laws and held everyone, nobles and peasants alike, accountable to them, and for this he is revered as Hammurabi the Lawgiver.
And then everything went to hell.
Through division of labor the city-states grew more and more powerful, and when united under a particularly ruthless leader like Ramses or Alexander or Julius Caesar, the cities' great military and cultural power could be wielded into Empires, where for many periods in our noble and dismal history most of the people on the planet were ruled by a single individual, or dynasty. More of the millennia ticked slowly away, as empires rose and fell, and ages both Golden and Dark rose and set like centuries-long days and nights.
And our numbers grew. And the amount of power to be harnessed grew, too.
Then, after seven millennia of the Agricultural revolution, a new wave of fundamental change occurred, as European engineers – many of them Scotsmen – learned to harness power orders of magnitude more potent than human or animal muscle. And the amount of power the Industrial Revolution made available to heads of state grew exponentially.
Now we need to slow down for a moment, for now things start to get really interesting…
Up until a few centuries ago, humans and human culture had placed ever more power – military, cultural, economic, raw power – in the hands of the state. But then, all of a sudden, just as that power was really beginning to hum with the throb and hiss of heavy industry, a small, radical faction of humanity split off completely from this universal norm. They literally ran human experience right off the rails and into the unknown. It was, and remains, an act so daring, so subversive and so radical that the most frothy-mouthed Berkeley student would drop their fist in wonder at it, had there been a Berkeley at the time.
Inspired largely by a spark, a strobe of similar thinking from a few long-gone city-states on the beautiful Aegean Sea twenty-five centuries before, a small group of these audacious and really mind-bogglingly confident humans decided, against all of human experience and historical precedent, to put a large wrench in the gears of the ever-growing state.
Those people are us.
For the first time in the seven millennia since Hammurabi, since people changed history by planting grass, a small, dedicated and brilliant group of humans decided that power would be taken away from the state, from the elite, from the bureaus and palaces of empire, and transferred to the most unlikely of places: back into the hands of the people planting the grass.
These humans had studied history. And philosophy. They spent all their waking hours, during every year of their lives, discussing the nature of mankind and the best way to govern and nurture this violent, noble, greedy and magnificent species we have become.
Using reason, they were able to define much of human nature, both the good and the bad. Poring endlessly through the alternately golden and bloody pages of our human experience in government, they sought to find a system of laws, a structure, that could harness ambition but limit greed, promote leadership but restrain tyranny, and free a people to make their own decisions and yet build in safeguards against mass hysteria and the dictatorship of the majority.
Their goal was nothing less than the liberation of the human spirit. Their success, though imperfect, was breathtaking.
Now we come forward the last two centuries, to this moment in time, through the Industrial Age and into the dawn of the third great revolution in human culture, the Information Age: which we are both experiencing, together, at this exact instant.
After two and a half centuries, how fare the descendents of this idea of removing power from an ever-growing state, shattering it, and returning it to the people? As an experiment, as a data set among seven thousand years of study, how well has this idea performed?
Reason will not give clear answers on such emotional and idiosyncratic concepts as taste and personal appeal, but some hard facts seem incontrovertible.
This experiment, this liberation of the individual from the state, has some qualities worth noting. This relatively small population has produced what is without question the worlds largest and most robust economy – indeed, on economic grounds alone, the American economic miracle, puzzled out in large part by a Rationalist named Adam Smith has shattered all historical comparisons.
Listen to what this man had to say in the banner year of 1776, for he had found a way – for the first time in human history – to convert what had in other systems been considered a base yet universal impulse into a cultural and social virtue of the highest order:
Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer…
It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.
Now some committed idealists may find that a little gauche. But it is a sober look at the fundamental truth of who humans are and how we behave, and a system based on this insight… well, by God, it works. The insight, the genius of this system is not that people can make themselves wealthy. It is that in order to make themselves wealthy through economics – through trade – they make their trading partners wealthier too.
The Mesopotamians figured this out seven thousand years ago. If I make a great basket, one that will hold just about anything, and a wobbly, bent spear that won't fly straight worth a damn, and you, on the other hand, make a mean, perfect, deadly javelin but your basket looks like a demented crow's nest and holds nothing…well then, guess what? If I give you one of my excellent baskets for one of your top-notch spears, when we walk away and go home we are both richer!
It's a miracle!
Adam Smith is not finished. He says:
It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labor, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people. [Emphasis mine]
Now Adam Smith could be dead wrong. His theories about human nature could be just as flawed as those of another hominid I wish to discuss in a moment. So what does the historical data say?
It says that a new civilization, using a relatively small percentage of the world's population, so armed, can create prosperity and wealth of such magnitude as to boggle the mind.
Americans are often criticized – and perhaps with some justification – of wanting to quantify things in terms of money. Okay, fair enough. But it's tough to deny that in this well-governed society, the universal opulence has done a passably good job of extending itself to the lowest ranks of the people. Even the poorest Americans have electricity and clean, safe running water. That alone puts them in a relatively posh club, compared to the vast numbers who refuse to take up this philosophy. Almost all have telephones, and televisions. The number one health problem among Adam Smith's poor is that they eat too much.
I am not saying poverty is swell. I am saying that the poorest Americans live better than 80 or 90 percent of the rest of the world. I call that an endorsement of Mr. Smith's theory. You can call it whatever you want.
Money isn't everything, obviously. Many people opposed to this experiment in self-rule, faced with its undeniable economic success, would like to believe that it only produces a feral band of ravenous merchants: soulless, dim-witted rug-traders with no cultural achievements to speak of.
But hey, watch out for that -- D'oh! Stupid evidence!
Self-rule, freedom, openness to criticism and dissent, has produced not only an economic miracle but a musical, literary, cinematic, military, scientific and technological explosion the likes of which poor, dim history has never seen. Moonwalks – both Neil's and Michael's -- Spider-Man, J-DAMS, Eminem – all from the same human reactor. And we could go on and on and on…
So what the hell does all this have to do with the military victory in Iraq?
Patience, Grasshopper.
This unmatched leap in human productivity – intellectual, economic, artistic – requires a few essential ingredients.
It requires mutual trust. And it requires hard work.
That's about it. Not such a big deal, really.
Now here is where life goes to hell: there are large numbers of people, really vast oceans of them, who despise, in the core of their being, one or both of these essential ingredients for human success.
Look at the personal make-up of kings and potentates and dictators throughout history, and you will find that widespread trust of the common man and a willingness to work as hard as they do are not high on the list of their qualities. You will often find this among ministers and bureaucrats, and some college professors, too.
And yet these are the people who have benefited from – stolen, actually – the wealth generated by grass-planting and basket-weaving and spear-making people throughout history. The wealth their hard work generated was promptly stolen by the state, and put into golden toilets in extravagant palaces – for the elites. It happened seven thousand years ago and it happened seven weeks ago. It has happened, continuously, through our shared human history. It continues, without any signs of fatigue, in many places to this very day. As Mel Brooks says, It's good to be the King. Of course, if you happen not to be the king -- not so good.
Now while concentrations of wealth in the hands of kings and dictators has become a little passé these last few decades, the state, and the idea of the state, is and remains very, very powerful. It appeals to all of our most infantile desires: We will take care of you, says the State. We will feed and clothe and house you all. We will take care of your education, and when you are sick, we will provide a doctor.
And all you have to do, is work for the rest of your lives, and give the wealth that hard work generates, to the State.
It follows that if one is willing to depend on the State for the very essence of life -- food, housing, medical care – then the State assumes life and death power over the people that make up that society. Which brings us to another deep-thinking hominid, who wrote that the most perfect human society is one that takes from each according to his ability, and gives to each according to his need. And who collects and disseminates this largesse?
Now, on the face of things, this theory of Karl Marx's is a damn sight more noble and refined than the you do what's good for you, I do what's good for me, and we both are better off pragmatism of Adam Smith. In theory, Communism is a moving and high-minded philosophy that is based on the highest human traits of compassion and sacrifice. This is why so many romantics and idealists are attracted to it. (Pacifism also recruits heavily from this pool, and for the same reason.)
Fortunately for our own personal enlightenment, history has put this idea -- this theory of how people are made -- into play as well. It is, for all intents and purposes, the direct opposite of the anti-state, radical experiment discussed earlier. How has it performed?
Not so well. During its trial in Russia, it managed to run the most resource-rich region of the earth into utter ruin and ecological devastation that will last for many decades, perhaps centuries. The State it produced killed no less than forty million of its own people, and it terrified and stunted, emotionally, intellectually and spiritually, the entire population to which it had attached itself. There is much noble and beautiful in Russian culture. Almost none of it came from this experiment.
Oh, and by the way, since it's easy to gloss over such things, let's say it again: Forty Million killed. Minimum.
Reason seems to tell us that if this system was as good as it sounds on paper, then it would be the Soviet economy dominating the world, Soviet movies playing in theatres around the world, Soviet songs on the planet's airwaves, and Soviet science and invention scattered across the earth like diamonds.
Oh, and uh, of course, there'd still be Soviets. Soviets winning the Cold War. Ronald Reagan dying of pneumonia in a Siberian Gulag rather than Mikhail Gorbachev making a Pizza Hut commercial.
Didn't pan out that way. That's evidence.
Okay, one data point doesn't make a line. Let's look at China, host to the world's largest population, one of its oldest cultures, and home to some of the hardest-working people on the planet.
Well, let's see: looks like at least thirty million killed by the State, the usual repression, torture and humiliation. No discernable cultural impact on the outside world. The number-one musical talent in communist China is…? I don't know. You probably don't either. The Chinese are making strides in manufacturing (they are also trying a new rulebook), but earth-shaking, history-altering inventions? Anyone? Bueller?
Russians and Chinese are smart people. Why such failure?
Despite the reams and rolls of evidence, there remains a committed, fanatical cadre of people who find the idea of a Benevolent State so compelling, so seductive, that they refuse to give it up in the face of any mountain of evidence to the contrary. They point to halfway states like Sweden, which, on the face of things, seem halfway awful by many standards. A lower GDP than Alabama or Mississippi – the poorest states in the opposing camp. But this isn't just about filthy lucre. The culture produces what? Abba, and Volvo. Loved the first, not a fan of the second. There is little invention, almost no outstanding contributions to science, technology, music or the arts -- although Bergman was terrific. It is a safe, decent place where everything is taken care of. It reminds me, in fact, of a very large retirement home.
This is exactly what many people want the world to become: a retirement home. Run by? Guess who! And they are doing everything in their power to see that it happens.
Okay, now to brass tacks. Enough history. Enough perspective. Back to the present. Back to the trenches.
Back, indeed, to the point.
We have just fought and won a great victory against a very great threat to this Nation. I am not referring to our military victory in Iraq.
There are many people, here and abroad, who see the State – Communist, Socialist – as the end result for the world. They hunger and lust for the power that the levers of such a machine provides. They have failed, through laziness or defect of character, to amass any such prestige and influence on their own. They trust no one but their co-conspirators – and they don't trust them much, either. Many of them have not done a hard day's work in their lives.
But the State gives them power. It gives them the power to rule through committee and unseen, faceless bureaucracy. It is they who decide where all the stuff taken from each according to his ability actually goes. The ability to dispense food, jobs, housing and medical care provides genuine power, real power, life and death power. Some of the people that pull these levers are benevolent. Some are not. If you get some that are not, who are seduced by this limitless, godlike power, then you and your society are in very deep yogurt.
The people who promote such a system constantly tinker with ever-changing theories that have in common only the fact that they fly in the face of all human nature and history. They have convinced themselves, in the face of all evidence and experience to the contrary, that they know what is best for "the masses." They believe that they, without any practical experience in the world, know how to better run a grocery store or a factory than the people that actually run the grocery stores and the factories.
They have Big Plans.
Nothing has stopped these people – nothing – from Hammurabi until today. With a single exception, they have ruled history.
That single exception, of course, is the United States of America.
And here is the fight I want to talk about: here. Because in order for these people to succeed, for the idea of a vast state run by elites to succeed, in order to start down this murderous dead-end road again, the United States as we know it must fail. It must fail, it has to fail, because the example of a free and prosperous United States, its vast power vested in its common citizens, acting as a force for liberation and freedom in the world and possessed of all the manifest rewards and glory its theory of humanity provides is an intolerable threat to those elites who see in the individual another faceless cog in the machinery of power.
America's unparalleled military might derives from a culture and a people so energetic, so hardworking and so ingenious that we can, frankly, afford to spend more than the rest of the world, combined, on defending that culture and people. We have had our Pearl Harbors and our Normandies. We have seen this experiment threatened by foreign militarism and we have made a collective decision to never put ourselves in that kind of danger again.
Because our theory of people works so much better than those who oppose us, America can afford to be unconquerable by force of arms. With many, many millions of well-armed and deeply patriotic citizens, it is essentially unbeatable even without a Defense Department. America's strength is broad and it is very, very deep.
You have one chance to defeat America today. You must shut down her reactor. You must kill the confidence, lie about the history, slander the Founders, undermine the morality, question the decency, mock the very ideas of self-sufficiency and self-defense, banish self-determination as a goal for individuals and the nation, destroy the intricate and delicately made checks and balances that inhibit state power, divide the people among racial and economic lines, and under no circumstances allow America to be seen to actually do what it claims to do: be a force for liberation, creativity, prosperity and freedom to all people, everywhere.
America's strength must be seen as that of a greedy, blinded giant, a drunken bully stealing from the world. It must be endlessly, constantly described as Imperial, consigning it in a single misused word to a long line of repression and historical failure. Forget that we rule no other countries, forget that we pay billions for our presence, rather than stealing billions at the point of a bayonet. Forget that we have paid for every single drop of oil we have ever burned, when we could in fact have easily done what we are accused of: stolen it at gunpoint. We do not, and did not, and will not – and they know it. We are, in fact, the anti-Empire. We have bucked history in every fundamental way. Wherever we sail is uncharted territory. No nation in history has done what we have done, and continue to do.
That is not allowed. People might go for something like that. Imperialists. Bullies. Baby Killers. Infidels. Colonialists.
We have, for the last fifty years, fought a terrible and dirty war against our mirror image. Our victory in the Cold War was so complete that the Soviet Union, the Superstate, was not only defeated and diminished, it just plain disappeared. And that is a terrible, terrible problem for America, because the departure of the Soviets from the collective memory has been so total and so abrupt that we are beginning to forget that they were ever here.
How else can people like Noam Chomsky and Michael Moore tally the sum of people killed in all the conflicts since the end of WWII and lay all of them at the feet of America? Why else could people blandly watch Bowling for Columbine total hundreds and thousands and millions dead, all hung around the neck of America, without so much as a mention, not a hint, not a peep of the words Soviet Union? Oh, and give it an Academy Award, and claim it is "the greatest documentary ever made."
How, in the name of God, is such a thing possible?
We have done some dirty, dishonorable deeds in the years since the end of World War II. They were done to fight a philosophy that has killed untold millions of people, brutalized and tortured countless more, and intimidated, humiliated and repressed every person that had the misfortune to be the guinea pigs in history's most horrible experiment in the power of the State.
But we did them. We overthrew popularly elected governments, backed some of the most loathsome and repressive regimes imaginable. In Vietnam we fought a war of attrition that was a decade-long root canal on our national soul. We ran interrogation schools that turned into universities for torture. They are stains on our nation, our history, and our honor, and like slavery, they will not go away, ever.
But let us never forget that they were the actions we took in response to the most pernicious evil the world has ever seen, and we did many evil things ourselves because that was the kind of war the communists chose to fight. It was, I suppose, better than a nuclear confrontation. But every charge of brutality and oppression leveled against this nation -- Allende, Vietnam, Nicaragua – was the direct result of a deadly serious war against a philosophy that has killed no less than one hundred million – a thousand Superbowl stadiums filled with people -- and brought ruin and despair everywhere it has been applied.
But we have just won a great victory, a powerful and deep victory indeed.
The victory was not winning the war in Iraq. The victory was not even how we won. Not the daring, bold, and brilliantly executed strategy, although that will be studied for centuries. Not the technological and tactical virtuosity, which was unparalleled. Not even the destruction of the dangerous and pernicious fantasy that Americans have no stomach for a fight that involves taking casualties, or that American soldiers are a bunch of high-tech sissies who go home after you kill a few dozen. All of these are enormous victories in their own right, and they will expand like shockwaves for many years to come. But they pale in comparison to the one true test we have just come through.
I maintain that the ultimate victory we can claim was the fact that we were willing to fight the war at all.
America willing to stand up and fight for what it believes in is a force to be reckoned with -- militarily, obviously – but spiritually, as well. America, armed with her principles, is a moral and transformational force of awesome proportions.
Our elitist opponents both at home and abroad -- those with the Big Plans -- recognized this very clearly. Because a full-blown shooting war would, in fact, be an experiment, in which their theory of America, their presentation of who and what we are, would be tested against reality.
This, too, could simply not be allowed – but they were done, defeated, whipped, when we committed the most courageous, audacious and confident military maneuver in U.S. history: we had the genius – the only word for it -- to place reporters from several nations, and from every point on the political spectrum – among the troops, to not only see for themselves, but to show the entire planet, in real time, whether or not American servicemen are baby-killing murderers or the most tightly disciplined, courageous, humble, humane and morally magnificent army that has ever gone into battle in the storied history of this human species.
Just step back for a moment, and think about how monumentally confident that action was. Before it even started, without knowing how well or badly it would go, with dire warnings of street-to-street fighting that would echo the horrors of Stalingrad, and predictions from shrill and desperate cynics that hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians would die – on camera – we decided that we could trust our eighteen and nineteen year old grunts to do the right thing with bullets flying and the blood of their best friends on their uniforms.
Ah, but these were American kids, well-educated, highly motivated, decent and determined, and the most professional warriors, ambassadors and statesmen that ever walked this earth. Good God I am proud of every single one of them.
They changed military history in the sands of Iraq. That was a victory. They dispelled the terribly dangerous illusion that we would cut and run at the first sign of casualties. Another huge and vital win, one that strengthens our diplomatic hand immeasurably, and palpably raises our level of safety because a weak and impotent America, a hollow paper tiger, was the operating thesis of both Saddam and Bin Laden. Huge victory.
We and our allies, the magnificent British and Australian and even Polish troops we fought alongside of, have made it clear that we can and will fight, that we can and will win, and win big, and win big quickly. That means that we'll be far, far less likely to have to fight in the future. This is a very real victory indeed, and those poor, desolate families that lost loved ones might take some comfort from the certainty that their sacrifices not only won this war, but won many wars that we will not now have to fight, saved hundreds if not thousands of other American families from facing that shock and pain and grief in the future. That is a victory of monumental proportions. It should be celebrated. Those families have paid a very terrible and heavy price for it, in those hundred-odd poor and desolate households that will never be the same again.
All of these are important, but none of them begin to approach the real Victory, which was the American people showing that despite thirty years of the very worst that America-hating celebrities and professors and news anchors and politicians could hurl our way, we still have the ethical and moral integrity, the willingness to sacrifice, and the will – the will – to defend this nation and what she represents, both to ourselves and to suffering and oppressed people everywhere.
We fought despite a shrill and rising whine, like a jet engine about to explode, warning us, begging us, threatening us, mocking us, shaming us not to fight. But we did fight. And that is the Victory I want to celebrate. Not as a swaggering, macho attitude about kicking ass and taking names. But rather the sublime, astonishing and humbling realization that everything the enemies of America could throw at us – failed. We have listened to their lies since Marx took pen to paper, yet the vast, strong, humane and decent center of this Silent America did not buy into the idea that we are a nation of murderers, and simpletons, and 'sheeple.'
If we could withstand that assault on our integrity, on our values and our beliefs, coming out of the stains of dishonor we assumed to win the many proxy battles of the Cold War, then what will these America-haters be left with? That an action that prevented parents from watching their children being placed into industrial shredders should never have taken place because some clay pots went missing? Who is left to believe these people now, except they themselves?
I never feared those losers, those cynics, those bitter, small, perpetually angry people. I only feared what they could do to the middle, to the center of the line, the people who get up and vote the way we will steer this ship of ours through the reefs and storms we sometimes face. They took their best shot. They took it at a time when their ammunition was piled as high as it will ever be in our lifetimes. They failed. They failed miserably. And in their failure they have shown what they are, and who they are, and what they really want.
International A.N.S.W.E.R, an offshoot of the Workers World Party, recipient of North Korean financial largesse and the driving force behind these rallies, does not care a whit about the Iraqi people. Nor does it want peace. What it and many other sad little groups desperately want is the paralysis and destruction of the one force that stands in the way of their flawed and murderous ideals: The United States of America.
They didn't get it. Not this time. Not today.
"America bring democracy, whiskey and sexy!" said that unknown Iraqi man. This is not a trivial statement. He is saying that for the first time in thirty years, he will have his own chance for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I thought his English was dead-on.
I hope these people stagger out into the sunlight of real freedom with a willingness to do those two simple things that seem to work so well: work hard, and trust each other. I think they will. They started civilization. They have earned, and well deserve, the chance to enjoy the fruits of it once again.
I hope they will resist the temptation to let oil revenues steer their future. It is not, in fact, a blessing. They are about to start to reap the benefits of the wealth of their nation. I hope they have the wisdom to channel that wealth into their people, into their education, their technical and artistic skill that was once so well represented in the cradle of law and good government. I hope for world-renowned universities in Baghdad and in An-Nasiriyah, producing respected scholars and scientists. I hope for productive farms in the Tigris-Euphrates valley, feeding the millions of the entire region, just as there were thousands of years ago. I hope for high-tech factories in Basra and Tikrit, textile mills in Kirkuk and cell-phone design firms in Mosul. And above all I hope they have the courage to read and study history, and to implement a system that looks something like the ones that allow these daily miracles in the West.
I hope that some day they might be able to forgive us the pain we had to cause them to get rid of that devil, that threat, and his evil toys. Many already do. I hope, and believe, that many more will do so in the years to come. We are still so very, very early in this long and difficult process. But perhaps, some day, they will be able to see that not only Iraqis died for a free Iraq. Americans died. Britons died. Australians and Poles and many others put their lives on the line as well. It would be arrogant and vile to expect gratitude, but I do hope, I deeply hope, that they will be able to understand why we did what we did and how much it cost us, in those poor, shattered homes across America and Great Britain.
And I have one final wish, which I know seems very unlikely, but which I will share anyway.
I fervently hope that someday, perhaps decades from now, Iraq will have a really top-notch soccer team. I hope that one day, they will get to the final round of the World Cup, and when they do, I hope it is Team USA they play for the championship.
I hope that the Americans play a tough, aggressive, masterful game, that they use all of the speed and skill and power at their command. And then I want to sit there watching TV as an old man, and watch the faces on the Iraqi people when the game is over, because I want to see that the most relieved and joyous they can conceive of being, is the day that tiny Iraq got out on that soccer field and kicked our ass.


text:
C.Barkley said "Nets = best team in NY". Are the Knicks NBAs Most Hated?
Yup - No love for Knicks
Nah - Knicks get love
Top Rated
Charles Barkley's been a NY hater since he was playing in Phila... he can suck on a phat one!!!!
I ask because they make all of these predictions without really seeing the Nets play. Okay they have new players and a new arena -- but until I really see something -- they are just the New Jersey Nets with a few new players and a new arena.. Also feel sports commentators (especially those who never played for NY) take a stab at the Knicks at any opportunity. Am I bugging? or will the league be mad when the Knicks get a championship?
Knicks get no love. We got Melo, it was too much. We signed some older players, we are old. We got veterans and they call them has beens but if those vets were on other teams, they'd be great, even starters. We decided against Lin and forget it, 1 billion people against us. Barkely picking the Nets just shows you why HE didn't get a ring...lack of basketball IQ. They are better because of Joe Johnson?? Please, I'd put Pablo on him. Go Knicks!!
they never get any good comments other than carmelo or amare its a team not a person
they dont like the knicks but most hated nah
Knicks are thrown under the bus by Barkley and ESPN on the regular.
yup us and the heat... but i hate those heat
Barkley has a thing for the Knicks. Maybe they turned him down for something or criticized him.
==== http://www.sipostyle.com http://www.pokostyle.com ==== Cheap Nike air Jordan shoes35$,Air Force 1 38$, Nike dunks SB shoe,Nike Shox shoe. Wholesale Cheap Nike shoes with discount jersey, High quality T-shirts,ED hardy t-shirts,ED Hardy hoodies,ED hardy shoes,ED hardy Jeans,Evisu shoes,GUCCI shoes,LV Handbag,Chanel Handbag……welcome to ==== http://www.sipostyle.com http://www.pokostyle.com ==== Nike shox(R4,NZ,OZ,TL1,TL2,TL3) $35 Handbags(Coach lv fendi d&g) $35 Tshirts (Polo ,ed hardy,lacoste) $16 Jean(True Religion,ed hardy,coogi) $30 Sunglasses(Oakey,coach,gucci,Armaini) $15
No Knicks Love, why not?
Top Rated
The Knicks have the greatest fans in the NBA
Hopefully they win so much and play so tough that they become most hated. Hopefully
Charles Barkley is a big NY hater from the days when he jumped up on the score's table after he lost in the Garden. Barkley speaks and most of the time he doesn't know any facts. Like saying the Knicks should have signed Lin and amnestied him in year 3. How could they do that if they already used it on Billups. He talks about the Knicks being so old but the starters average age is under 29. All of the older players with a guarantied contract are in great shape and Wallace will have to show that he can get there in order to get one. Barkley has no idea how long a vet could play if he stays in shape because Barkley was rarely in shape himself. Thats why his comeback try ended in the dumpster behind his neighborhood Krispi Kreme.
under dogs can bite you BIG! f**K aLL haters
get out of here barkley! Thats Terrrribl
I don't believe New York has bought into the "Brooklyn" newcomers yet. They have to prove they haven't left their hearts in New Jersey! However, they do need to leave their losing ways there!

subset: commoncrawl


text:
A nanofiltration process for obtaining sucrose uses a feed syrup, such as molasses, that comprises sucrose and no less than about 3% by weight invert sugars (on a dry solids basis). The nanofiltration produces a permeate and retentate. The nanofiltration permeate will comprise invert sugars that have passed from the feed through the nanofiltration membrane, and preferably will also comprise ash from the feed. The nanofiltration retentate has a higher concentration of sucrose and a lower concentration of invert sugars than the feed syrup. Sucrose can then be crystallized from the nanofiltration retentate. The reduction of the invert content in the syrup facilitates crystallization and thus enhances sucrose recovery.
1. A process for obtaining sucrose from a sucrose-containing syrup, comprising the steps of:
(a) nanofiltration of a feed syrup that comprises sucrose and no less than about 3% by weight invert sugars (on a dry solids basis) using a nanofiltration membrane, whereby a nanofiltration permeate and a nanofiltration retentate are produced, wherein the nanofiltration permeate comprises invert sugars, and wherein the nanofiltration retentate has:
(i) a concentration of sucrose that on a dry solids basis is higher than the concentration of sucrose in the feed syrup, and
(ii) a concentration of invert sugars that on a dry solids basis is lower than the concentration of invert sugars in the feed syrup; and
(b) recovery of the nanofiltration retentate.
2. The process of
(c) crystallization of sucrose from the nanofiltration retentate.
3. The process of
4. The process of
5. The process of
6. The process of
7. The process of
8. The process of
9. The process of
10. The process of
11. The process of
12. The process of
13. The process of
wherein the microfiltration or ultrafiltration permeate is filtered through the nanofiltration membrane, and
wherein the microfiltration or ultrafiltration retentate comprises at least one impurity that was present in the feed syrup and is selected from the group consisting of colloids, polysaccharides, and color-forming materials.
14. The process of
15. The process of
16. The process of
17. The process of
18. The process of
19. A process for obtaining sucrose from molasses, comprising the steps of:
(a) filtration of molasses that comprises sucrose and no less than about 5% invert sugars (on a dry solids basis) using a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane, whereby a first permeate and a first retentate are produced, wherein the first retentate comprises at least one impurity that was present in the molasses and is selected from the group consisting of colloids, polysaccharides, and color-forming materials;
(b) nanofiltration of the first permeate using a nanofiltration membrane having a molecular weight cutoff of about 100-500 daltons, whereby a second permeate and a second retentate are produced, wherein the second permeate comprises more than about 75% by weight of the invert sugars that were in the molasses, and wherein the second retentate has a concentration of sucrose that on a dry solids basis is higher than the concentration of sucrose in the molasses; and
(c) crystallization of sucrose from the second retentate.
The present invention relates to a process for recovering sucrose from low grade sugar syrups, juices, or liquors, such as molasses, that also contain a significant concentration of invert sugars.
The production of cane sugar for human consumption generally comprises two distinct operations, namely the production of raw sugar and the production of refined sugar. Production of raw sugar typically takes place at a sugar mill. In the mill, sugar cane stalks are chopped into pieces and the pieces are crushed in a series of mills in order to remove the juice. The juice from the first set of roller mills is referred to as "first juice," while the total juice from all the roller mills in the process is referred to as "mixed juice." The juice is normally limed, deaerated and clarified (i.e., removal of suspended solids, usually by sedimentation). The clarified stream is referred to as "clarified juice." The juice is then evaporated to a thick syrup (known as "evaporated juice" or "thick juice"), and crystallized in a vacuum pan. The "massecuite" (i.e., mixture of sugar syrup and crystals) produced in the vacuum pan is stirred in a crystallizer, and the mother syrup is spun off from the raw sugar crystals in a centrifugal separator. The solid sugar in the centrifugal basket is washed with water to remove remaining syrup. The solid crystalline product is termed "raw sugar." The syrup remaining after multiple stages of crystallization and centrifugation is referred to as "cane mill molasses" and is typically used for animal feed or fermentation syrups.
Raw sugar from the mill is usually transported to a sugar refinery for further processing. In a conventional cane sugar refining process, the raw sugar is first washed and centrifuged to remove adherent syrup, and the "affined sugar" thus produced is dissolved in water as "melter liquor." The syrup removed from the surface of the raw sugar is known as "affination syrup" and is broadly similar in composition to the mother syrup from the raw sugar crystallization. The affination syrup is processed in a "recovery section" through a series of vacuum pans, crystallizers and centrifugal separators similar to those used for the production of raw sugar, to recover an impure crystalline sugar product which has approximately the same composition as raw sugar. This recovered sugar product is dissolved in water, along with the affined raw sugar, to make melter liquor. The syrup remaining after the multiple stages of crystallization and centrifugation is referred to as "cane refinery molasses," and is typically used for animal feed or fermentation syrups.
The melter liquor is purified, generally by the successive steps of clarification (also referred to as "defecation") and decolorization, and the resulting "fine liquor" is crystallized to give refined sugar (also known as "white sugar"). The clarification step usually involves forming an inorganic precipitate in the liquor, and removing the precipitate and along with it insoluble and colloidal impurities which were present in the melter liquor. In one of the clarification processes commonly used for melter liquor, termed "carbonatation" or "carbonation," the inorganic precipitate is calcium carbonate, normally formed by the addition of lime and carbon dioxide to the liquor. The calcium carbonate precipitate is usually removed from the liquor by filtration. Other clarification processes, termed phosphatation processes, involve adding lime and phosphoric acid to the liquor, and produce calcium phosphate precipitate.
The molasses produced in cane mills and refineries contains a substantial concentration of sucrose (e.g., 35-55% by weight on a dry solids basis). However, that sucrose cannot be recovered readily by additional crystallizations, because the molasses contains such a high concentration of impurities, including invert sugars (a mixture of glucose and fructose). The sucrose in the molasses could be sold for a far higher price than the molasses, if only the sucrose could be separated from the other constituents of the molasses in an economical way. However, the prior art has failed to provide a practical and cost-effective way to make this separation for cane syrups where invert is a significant component.
Chromatographic separation is used to desugar beet molasses and is being proposed for cane, but beet molasses has no invert and it is more straightforward to separate the sucrose. Chromatographic separation is an expensive process for cane. There is a long-standing need for improved processes for enhancing recovery of sucrose from low grade cane syrups such as molasses.
The present invention concerns a process for obtaining sucrose from a feed syrup that comprises sucrose and no less than about 3% by weight invert sugars (on a dry solids basis). The process involves nanofiltration of this feed using a membrane, whereby a nanofiltration permeate and a nanofiltration retentate are produced. The nanofiltration permeate will comprise invert sugars that have passed from the feed through the nanofiltration membrane, and preferably will also comprise ash and organic acids. The nanofiltration retentate has (1) a concentration of sucrose that on a dry solids basis is higher than the concentration of sucrose in the feed syrup, and (2) a concentration of invert sugars that on a dry solids basis is lower than the concentration of invert sugars in the feed syrup. The nanofiltration retentate is recovered and sucrose can be crystallized therefrom. The reduction of the invert content facilitates crystallization and thus enhances sucrose recovery.
Preferably, the feed syrup comprises at least about 5%, more preferably at least about 15% invert sugars on a dry solids basis. Suitable feed syrups include, for example, cane mill molasses, cane refinery molasses, and beet molasses, as well as a variety of other syrups, liquors, and juices, which are all referred to as "syrups" in the context of this invention. In some embodiments of the process, more than about 50% by weight, preferably more than about 75%, more preferably more than about 90% by weight of the invert sugars in the feed syrup pass through the nanofiltration membrane and into the nanofiltration permeate.
It is preferred that the nanofiltration membrane have a molecular weight cutoff of about 150-300 daltons. It is also preferred that, prior to nanofiltration, the feed syrup be pre-filtered through a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane. This will produce a microfiltration or ultrafiltration retentate and a microfiltration or ultrafiltration permeate. This permeate is subsequently filtered through the nanofiltration membrane. The microfiltration or ultrafiltration retentate comprises at least one impurity that was present in the feed syrup and is selected from the group consisting of colloids, polysaccharides, and color-forming materials. In especially preferred embodiments of the process, more than about 50% by weight of the colloids, polysaccharides, and color-forming materials in the feed syrup pass into the microfiltration or ultrafiltration retentate.
Optionally, the process can also include the step of diafiltration of the microfiltration or ultrafiltration retentate. This will produce a diafiltration retentate and a diafiltration permeate, and the former will have a reduced sucrose content compared to the microfiltration or ultrafiltration retentate. The diafiltration permeate can be combined with the microfiltration or ultrafiltration permeate prior to nanofiltration.
In the present invention, the crystallization of the nanofiltered material of course produces crystalline sucrose, but also produces a molasses byproduct, which can be recycled into the feed syrup, or can be used for other purposes such as animal feed or fermentation syrup. If this molasses byproduct stream is recycled to the feed syrup, it is usually preferable to withdraw a bleed stream from the recycled byproduct in an amount sufficient to prevent buildup of impurities in the process to an extent that would inhibit crystallization of sucrose.
One specific embodiment of the present invention is a process for obtaining sucrose from molasses. This process includes the steps of:
(a) filtration of molasses that comprises sucrose and no less than about 5% invert sugars (on a dry solids basis), preferably at least about 10% invert sugars using a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane, whereby a first permeate and a first retentate are produced, wherein the first retentate comprises at least one impurity that was present in the molasses and is selected from the group consisting of colloids, polysaccharides, and color-forming materials;
(b) nanofiltration of the first permeate using a nanofiltration membrane having a molecular weight cutoff of about 150-300 daltons, whereby a second permeate and a second retentate are produced, wherein the second permeate comprises more than about 75% by weight of the invert sugars that were in the molasses, and wherein the second retentate has a concentration of sucrose that on a dry solids basis is higher than the concentration of sucrose in the molasses; and
(c) crystallization of sucrose from the second retentate.
The present invention provides a relatively simple and low-cost process for enhancing sucrose recovery. The present invention is especially useful for recovery of additional sucrose from molasses, thereby allowing the overall product mix of a sugar manufacturing facility to be sold for a higher aggregate price.
The present invention provides a method of increasing the sucrose content of syrup, and lowering its invert and ash content sufficiently for the sucrose to be recovered by crystallization. For example, a typical molasses from a sugar cane refinery contains 50% sucrose, 23% invert, 17% ash, and 10% other organic components. It is possible to use the process described here to reduce the invert level from 23% to 2%, and reduce the ash level from 17% to 7%, giving a purified syrup with a sucrose content of 75%. The upgraded syrup from this process can be fed to crystallization equipment to recover more sucrose. There will be a small loss of sucrose into the permeate from the nanofiltration membrane, which is the by-product of the nanofiltration process. This permeate material often will have 20% or less sucrose, which gives an 80% yield of sucrose from the syrup. This nanofiltration byproduct would comprise 45% invert, and with a total sugars content of 65% could be sold as a fermentation syrup.
FIG. 1 is a process flow diagram for a cane mill.
FIG. 2 is a process flow diagram for a cane sugar refinery.
FIG. 3 is a process flow diagram for a process of the present invention for recovering sucrose from molasses.
FIG. 4 is a process flow diagram for another process of the present invention in which sucrose is recovered from molasses.
FIG. 5 is a process flow diagram of the operations performed in Example 1.
FIG. 6 is a process flow diagram of the operations performed in Examples 2 and 6.
The process of the invention can be used with a variety of low grade sucrose-containing syrups (i.e., syrups that contain some sucrose but also contain substantial concentrations of other sugars and impurities). Molasses from cane mills and cane refineries are two suitable examples of such low-grade syrups. Beet molasses, beet thick juice, and beet thin juice from the refining of sugar beets are other suitable examples. Other liquors and syrups to which this process can be applied include mill first juice, mixed juice, incubated juice, clarified juice, thick juice, A molasses, B molasses, plus refinery liquors and syrups such as affination syrup, jet syrups or run-off syrups produced by white sugar crystallizations, first crop syrup, and second crop syrup. In general, the syrups which can be treated using the present invention preferably have a beginning sucrose content of about 35-95% on a dry solids basis.
Cane sugar is commonly produced in two stages, the first stage being a cane mill which produces raw sugar, and the second stage being a refinery which converts the raw cane sugar to refined white sugar. The cane juice extracted from sugar cane usually has a sucrose content of 80 to 90%. (All percentages given in this patent are by weight and on a dry solids basis unless otherwise stated.) The impurities include color, invert (which is almost equal parts of glucose and fructose), ash (mainly potassium, calcium, sodium, chloride, sulfate and phosphate), organic acids (mainly lactic acid), polysaccharides, waxes, and gums. All of these impurities must be removed in the cane mill and the refinery in order to make white sugar. The cane juice that contains 80 to 90% sucrose is crystallized in the mill to produce a raw sugar that is 96 to 99.5% sucrose. The mother liquor from this crystallization is usually crystallized twice more, with the sugar being produced in the third of these crystallizations (or sometimes in both the second and third crystallizations) usually used as seed in the first or "A" crystallization. The final mother liquor is molasses, and is usually composed of about 35-50% sucrose, 10-20% glucose and fructose (invert), 15% ash, and the remainder other organic material.
FIG. 1 shows one specific embodiment of a sugar cane mill. In the mill, sugar cane stalks 10 are chopped into pieces and the pieces are crushed in a series of roller mills in order to remove the juice. The juice from the first set of roller mills 12 is referred to as first juice, while the total juice from all the roller mills (12, 14) in the process is referred to as mixed juice 16. The solid stalk material that remains after the juice is removed is termed "bagasse" 18 and is typically used as boiler fuel. The juice is heated 22 to about 105° C. after addition of lime and clarified 24 (i.e., removal of suspended solids, usually by sedimentation). The clarified juice 26 is then evaporated 28 to form thick juice 30, and crystallized in a first vacuum crystallization pan 32 (the "A crystallization"). The massecuite 34 (mixture of sugar syrup and crystals) from the A crystallization is sent to a centrifugal separator 36 where the mother syrup (or "A molasses") 38 is spun off from the raw sugar 40. The A molasses 38 is then sent to a second crystallizer 42, where the B crystallization takes place. The massecuite from the B crystallization is separated in the B centrifuge 44 into raw sugar 40 and B molasses 46. The latter is sent to a third crystallizer 48. The massecuite from this C crystallization is sent to a third centrifugal separator 50. The crystals 52 obtained from this C centrifuge are used as seed crystals in the A and B crystallizations (32, 44). The remaining syrup is cane mill molasses 54. Further crystallizations of sucrose from this molasses are generally not feasible due to its high invert and ash content.
Raw sugar is sent to a refinery for further processing. A diagram of a typical cane sugar refinery is shown in FIG. 2. The first step in a refinery is usually a mingling and affination step using centrifuges 60 and 62. These affination centrifuges give washed crystals 64 of 99.5 to 99.8% sucrose and an affination syrup 66 that is 80 to 90% sucrose. This affination syrup is usually sent to a recovery or remelt process where some of the sucrose content is recovered.
The affined sugar 64 is melted 68 and purified by carbonatation 70, filtration 72, and decolorization 74, and then evaporated 76 and crystallized 78 to produce white sugar 80. The mother liquor from this crystallization is separated from the white sugar in a centrifuge and is then crystallized again to make a second strike of white sugar. This process is repeated three or four times, making white sugar 80 each time. After the third or fourth crystallization, white sugar cannot be made from the sugar liquor. This final mother liquor 82 is then sent to the recovery or remelt process to recover sucrose. It usually contains from 85 to 92% sucrose and is often mixed with the affination syrup 66 produced in the affination stage. The sugar is separated from these syrups by crystallization. Although the mixed affination syrup and final mother liquor from white sugar crystallization usually are mixed and crystallized together, it is also possible to crystallize them separately.
In the specific embodiment shown in FIG. 2, the affination syrup 66 and final mother liquor 82 are combined and sent to a recovery section which comprises three crystallizers (84, 88, 92) and three associated centrifuges (86, 90, 94). The crystallized sugar from the first crystallizer 84 is separated from syrup in the centrifuge 86 and combined with the main sugar stream in the melter 68, where it is mixed in and passes to carbonatation and decolorization. The mother liquor 96 from the first crystallization in the recovery section is then crystallized a further two times (88, 92). The sugar 97 produced can be melted in a recovery melter 99 and sent to the main sugar stream, or more usually sent to the first of the recovery or remelt crystallizations. The final mother liquor 100 is molasses. It is not possible to crystallize any more sucrose from molasses because of the solubility characteristics of sucrose in the molasses. The composition of this molasses is typically 40 to 50% sucrose, 10 to 20% invert (glucose and fructose), 10 to 15% ash, and 10 to 25% other material, mainly organic materials such as polysaccharides and waxes.
The overall sucrose yield of a refinery is quite high, often in the range 95 to 98%. However, although the sucrose lost in the molasses is relatively small as a percentage of the total sucrose in the cane, it amounts to a large absolute quantity, taking into account the large volumes of material processed. This lost sucrose would be much more valuable if it could be recovered economically and sold separately, than it is as a component of the relatively low-value molasses.
The present invention uses nanofiltration to help recover much of this previously wasted sucrose. By separating sucrose from invert sugars, and preferably also from ash, the present invention converts low grade syrups from which pure sucrose cannot be readily crystallized, into higher grade syrups from which pure sucrose can be recovered by additional crystallizations.
Molasses or low grade syrups contain a large amount of fine suspended solids and high molecular weight materials, particularly polysaccharides and color-forming materials. These impurities can foul a membrane with small pores such as a nanofiltration membrane. A nanofiltration membrane will separate invert and other impurities without any prior membrane treatment, but it is not as effective. Therefore, it is preferred that nanofiltration of the molasses or other low grade syrup be preceded by either microfiltration or ultrafiltration, or optionally both, to remove larger impurities that might foul the nanofiltration membrane or inhibit crystallization of sucrose. The microfiltration membrane can have a pore size of about 0.02 to 0.2 microns, and the ultrafiltration membrane can have a pore size of from about 2000 daltons to 100,000 daltons. Of course, multiple stages of microfiltration, ultrafiltration, and/or nanofiltration can be included in the process, optionally with other unit operations taking place inbetween such membrane filtrations.
One embodiment involves treating sugar cane juice after it has been extracted by crushing the cane. The juice used could be first juice, mixed juice or clarified juice. It could also be partly evaporated juice at up to 50% dry solids (50 Brix). As mentioned above, this juice would need to be filtered and/or clarified prior to nanofiltration to prevent blocking or fouling of the nanofiltration membrane and membrane system. This can be done using either or both a microfiltration membrane and a ultrafiltration membrane. A typical cane juice could be treated to increase the sucrose content from 85 to 95%, allowing a higher yield of sucrose to be obtained by conventional crystallization, either in the form of raw sugar or plantation white sugar.
The molasses produced at a cane mill can also be treated using nanofiltration technology to generate a syrup that has reduced invert and ash content compared to the molasses, and thus can be used as the feed for further crystallizations of sucrose. The method of doing these further crystallizations would be very similar to what is done in the recovery section of a cane refinery. Again the molasses usually would preferably need pretreatment with a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane. The recovered sucrose can be passed to the A or B crystallizer for crystallization to raw sugar.
Many other intermediate liquors or syrups such as thick juice, A molasses, or B molasses, can be treated in a similar way.
One specific embodiment of a nanofiltration process to separate sucrose from either cane factory (mill) or refinery molasses is shown in FIG. 3. Molasses is produced from the recovery or remelt process of conventional cane sugar refinery. This molasses will typically have a sucrose content of 40 to 50%, an invert content of 10 to 25%, and an ash content of 10 to 15%, with other impurities making up the remainder. This molasses 101 can be diluted, and the pH can be adjusted with sodium hydroxide in step 102. The concentration of the molasses preferably is reduced from about 80 Brix to about 25 Brix, and the pH preferably is adjusted to about pH 7.0. The diluted molasses can then pumped by pump 103 to a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane 104. A recirculating pump 104A pumps the diluted molasses across the membrane in a crossflow manner. This membrane removes colloidal material, polysaccharides and some color, and provides a diluted molasses that has a very low turbidity. The percentage of sucrose, invert, and ash is hardly changed in this type of membrane; its only purpose is to remove suspended solids and materials that would interfere with the performance of the nanofiltration membrane.
The retentate of the microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane can be concentrated several times and then passed to a diafiltration system 105 to wash sucrose from the retentate. Diafiltration water is added to the retentate to accomplish this. A recirculating pump 105A pumps the diluted retentate from the main microfiltration system over the diafiltration membrane. This dilute stream, which is the permeate of the diafiltration membrane, is returned to the main stream of dilute molasses 106. The final retentate 130 of the microfiltration or ultrafiltration is very low in sucrose content, and can be added to the final desugared molasses for use as a cattle feed. It must first be concentrated in evaporator 105B.
The diluted and filtered molasses stream 107 can be processed by a nanofiltration membrane. As this nanofiltration membrane is typically operated at high pressure, a feed pump 108 is required, plus a recycle pump 109 to pass the diluted molasses over the nanofiltration membrane 110. Several stages of nanofiltration (111, 112) may be required, with the addition of diafiltration water 113. Two streams are produced by the nanofiltration. One is the retentate 114, in which the sucrose content has been increased. This retentate is concentrated in an evaporator 115. This evaporated syrup stream which will typically contain 75% sucrose can then be sent to a crystallizer 119 and centrifuge 120 to crystallize and recover sugar. The molasses from this crystallization that has been separated from recovered crystal sugar by centrifuge 120 can be recycled to the molasses supply tank 101 for further treatment. A bleed stream 121 from this line will prevent the buildup of undesirable impurities in the system.
The other stream produced by the nanofiltration is the permeate 116, which contains the impurities that have been removed, mainly invert and ash, plus some sucrose and some organics such as lactic acid. A typical composition will be sucrose 12%, invert 45%, ash 30%, and other organics 13%. This stream also needs to be concentrated, and this can be done using an evaporator, or a reverse osmosis membrane system 117 followed by an evaporator 118. This concentrated desugared molasses stream can be sold as a fermentation syrup or an animal feed.
FIG. 4 shows another embodiment of a nanofiltration process of the present invention. Affination syrup 66 and/or jet 4 syrup (the mother liquor of the fourth white sugar crystallization) are processed through a series of three crystallizers (200, 204, 208) and associated centrifuges (202, 206, 210). Crystals 212 recovered from the first centrifuge 202 are combined with the main sugar stream in the melter. Crystals recovered from the second and third centrifuges 206 and 210 pass into a melter 214, and then into the first crystallizer 200. The syrup produced by the third centrifuge 210 is first microfiltered or ultrafiltered 216, and then nanofiltered 218. A diafiltration module 220, which comprises a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane, is used to wash some residual sucrose from the retentate of the microfiltration/ultrafiltration 216. The sucrose stream recovered by this diafiltration 220 is combined with the microfiltration/ultrafiltration permeate and fed to the nanofiltration 218. The nanofiltration permeate and the diafiltration permeated are combined to form a desugarized molasses stream 222, often containing as little as 10% or less sucrose. The nanofiltration retentate is recycled back to the first crystallizer 200.
The process of the present invention can also be used in processing sugar beets. The conventional process for producing sugar from sugar beet starts with the extraction of juice from sliced beets using water in a diffuser. This juice is then treated with lime in order to remove some impurities and destroy invert. The invert in the juice is destroyed by the high pH and high temperatures used in this conventional process, and the resulting thin juice has a very low invert level, typically 0.1%.
Some alternative beet processes involve treating the juice that is extracted from the sugar beets with a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane, and use either no lime or relatively low levels of lime. This membrane can filter out colloidal material and intermediate and high molecular weight material. However it does not increase the sucrose content of the juice by very much, usually less than 1 percentage point. This is a disadvantage because the yield of white sugar that can be obtained from the juice is directly proportional to its sucrose content.
One of the advantages of these membrane processes is that they can use much less lime than the conventional beet process. For example, the membrane processes can use 0 to 2% of lime (based on the final weight of sugar produced) whereas the conventional process can use 6 to 10% lime on the final sugar. Although these low levels of lime make the process less expensive in terms of lime consumption, they do not destroy the invert present in the beet juice. This invert level can be from 1 to 8%, depending on the sugar beet type, how long it has been stored, and the storage conditions. The presence of this high a concentration of invert also reduces the sucrose content of the juice, further reducing the yield of white sugar.
The present invention allows invert and ash to be partially or completely removed from the beet juice that has been processed with a microfiltration or an ultrafiltration membrane. A typical beet juice after treatment with a microfiltration or ultrafiltration membrane comprises 87% sucrose, 3% invert, 4% ash and 6% other material. When further treated with nanofiltration according to the methods of this invention, most of the invert and some of the ash can be removed, giving a purified juice comprising 91.5% sucrose, 0.5% invert, 2% ash, and 6% other material. This material is a purer and superior material to concentrate and crystallize, giving a higher yield of white sugar crystals.
People skilled in this field will appreciate that many other implementations of this invention are possible.
Nanofiltration membranes for use in the present invention preferably have a molecular weight cutoff of about 100-500 Daltons, more preferably about 150-300 Daltons, and a magnesium chloride rejection of 96%. Suitable ultrafiltration membranes preferably will have a molecular weight cutoff of about 2000-100,000 daltons. Suitable microfiltration membranes preferably will have a pore size of about 0.02-0.2 microns. Suitable membrane systems are available from manufacturers such as Koch Membrane Systems, Wilmington, Mass. (USA); Osmonics/Desal, Vista, Calif. (USA); Dow Chemical Company, Midland, Mich. (USA); and SCT Membralox (France).
The invention can be further understood from the following examples.
The feed material used for this experiment was cane refinery molasses at about 75 Brix. 25 liters of this molasses was added to a 100 liter tank fitted with a heating coil. Water was added to dilute the molasses to 25 Brix, requiring about 50 liters of water, giving a total of 75 liters of diluted molasses. The pH of this diluted molasses was adjusted from its original value of pH 5.5 up to pH 7 using sodium hydroxide, and was then heated to 65° C. This material was filtered through a coarse bag filter and then through a cartridge filter of about 10 microns pore size, giving a clear diluted molasses feed material for the nanofiltration experiment. This material was pumped to the feed tank of a nanofiltration pilot plant, which has a volume of about 100 liters.
A process flow diagram for this experiment is shown in FIG. 5. The equipment included the feed tank 250, a feed pump 252, a pair of nanofiltration membranes (254, 256) in series, and a recirculation pump 258.
The nanofiltration equipment comprised two 4-inch spiral modules in series, and the membrane used was a Desal 5. The manufacturer of this membrane is Osmonics/Desal of Vista, Calif., USA. The membrane is designed to operate at 35 bar and the feed pump 252 was set to produce this pressure. The re-circulation pump 258 was set to give a pressure across the membrane modules of 12 psi.
Permeate 260 was collected from the two membrane modules. The permeate was not recycled to the feed tank and instead was collected over the period of time of the experiment. An amount of water approximately equal to the permeate volume was added to the feed to prevent the Brix of the feed from rising too high. The retentate 262 was recycled to the feed tank 250.
The volume of permeate over a period of time was measured to calculate the permeate flow rate of the two modules. The removal of permeate and addition of water in the feed tank were continued until the amount of water added was 3 times the original feed volume. The experiment was then stopped and the collected samples of retentate and permeate taken for analysis. The results of this analysis are shown in Table 1 (all percentages are by weight on a dry solids basis). The flux is given as liters per hour per square meter (lmh).
The analysis of sucrose, glucose, and fructose (the latter two added to give invert) was carried out on a Hewlett Packard HPLC using a Waters 6.5×300 mm Sugar-Pak HPLC column. Ash was measured by conductivity using an Alpha 200 conductivity meter.
It was found that the sucrose content of the molasses had been increased from 49.6% to 61.9%. The invert was reduced from 19.2% to 2.4%, and the ash reduced from 16.8% to 8.2%.
The feed material for this experiment was cane refinery molasses at 75 Brix. About 50 liters of this molasses was added to a 200 liter tank. Water was added to dilute the molasses to 25 Brix, requiring about 100 liters of water. The pH of this diluted molasses was raised from its natural level of pH 5.5 up to pH 7.0 by the addition of sodium hydroxide. It was hen heated to 70° C. using a steam coil in the feed tank.
The diluted molasses was pre-filtered using a microfiltration membrane. The equipment used for this pre-filtration is shown in FIG. 6, and comprised a feed tank 300, a screen 302, a feed pump 304, and a membrane module 306. The membrane used was a SCT ceramic membrane with a pore size of 0.1 microns. This membrane is available from SCT Membralox. The feed pump 304 was set to give a cross-flow velocity of 4 m/sec and the transmembrane pressure was set at 3 bar. The feed to the pump was passed through a 100-micron screen 302 to remove any suspended solids that could block the channels of the membrane. About 100 liters of permeate was collected and fed to the feed tank of the nanofiltration membrane.
The nanofiltration membrane system was then run according to the method described in Example 1, except that the feed material had been pre-filtered by microfiltration, rather than with a 10-micron cartridge filter.
The results are shown in Table 2. The analysis for sucrose, invert and ash were carried out as described in Example 1.
The sucrose content of the molasses was increased from 51.6% to 70.1%, and the invert decreased from 17.2% to 2.7%. The ash was decreased from 12.4% to 4.2%. There was 18.4% sucrose in the permeate 310.
This experiment used refinery first crop syrup. This syrup is the mother liquor from the first crystallization in the recovery of remelt process. The feed for this crystallization is affination syrup and a liquor that is termed "jet 4", the mother liquor from the fourth white sugar boiling. The sucrose content of first crop syrup can typically range from 70% to 78%. The syrup used for the experiment had a sucrose content of 75.5% by weight (d.s.b.).
All conditions and methods for Example 3 were as used in Example 2, including the microfiltration pretreatment. As shown in Table 3, the sucrose content was increased from 75.5% up to 83.3% and there was 31% sucrose in the permeate.
The feed for this experiment was affination syrup. The conditions and methods of the experiment were the same as Example 2, including the microfiltration pretreatment. As shown in Table 4, the sucrose content of the affination syrup was increased from 81.5% to 89.7%. The permeate contained 40% sucrose.
This experiment used as a feed material evaporated clarified juice from a sugar cane mill. This material is the evaporated form of the juice obtained by washing cane in a cane mill.
The conditions and methods of the experiment were the same as in Example 2, including the microfiltration pretreatment. The results are shown in Table 5.
This experiment used cane refinery molasses. This material was pre-treated through a microfiltration membrane as described in Example 2. After this pre-treatment, the diluted filtered molasses was then further filtered through an ultrafiltration membrane, using an equipment configuration as shown in FIG. 6.
The equipment used for ultrafiltration was the same as that used for microfiltration, but the membrane used was an Osmonics GH 2500cl having a molecular weight cutoff of 2,500 Daltons. This membrane is available from Osmonics. The process conditions used were similar to the microfiltration, but the operating pressure used was 10 bar and the cross-flow pressure was 0.7 bar. The permeate was collected from this procedure and this was used as the feed to the nanofiltration. The procedures and equipment used for nanofiltration were as described in Example 1.
As shown in Table 6, the sucrose content of the molasses was increased from 52.1% to 75.1% and the sucrose in the permeate was 18.4%.
This experiment used beet juice produced by filtering through a membrane. This was obtained by taking juice obtained by diffusion of beets, and filtering it through an ultrafiltration membrane with a pore size of from 10,000 to 50,000 daltons. The beets used had been stored for a few months and the sucrose content of the juice obtained was relatively low at 86% with 3% of invert. The pH was adjusted to pH 7 with sodium hydroxide; lime was not used for either pH adjustment or destruction of invert.
All conditions and methods for Example 7 were as used in Example 1, except prefiltration through a coarse bag filter and a cartridge filter were not required, as the juice was already free of suspended solids having passed through an ultrafiltration membrane. The results are shown in Table 7.
The nanofiltration membrane used in all of the above examples was a Desal 5. Other nanofiltration membranes that can be used are Hydranautics NTR 7450, AMT ATP 50 or ASP 50, or Dow NF 45.
The preceding description of specific embodiments of the present invention is not intended to be a complete list of every possible embodiment of the invention. Persons skilled in this field will recognize that modifications can be made to the specific embodiments described here that would be within the scope of the present invention.
Citas de patentes
Otras citas
Citada por
Eventos legales
Imagen original


text:
« Previous Ad
Next Ad »
cebu contact jay acain 0918.358.5184
- Promotes Longevity
- Lowers Cholesterol Level
- Protects against Heart Diseases and Complications
- Helps prevent Cancer of any origin
- Controls High-Blood Pressure
- Controls Blood Sugar
- Enhances and Balances the Metabolism
- Prevents Degenerative Diseases like Arthritis
- Enhances, Nourishes, Strengthens and Balances the Immune System
- Increases the production of inherent glutathione in our body
- Rejuvenates the skin
- Regenerates Liver Cells
- Promotes healthy blood circulation
- Detoxifies the body
- Reduces Fatigue, Depression and Anxiety
- Enhances Sexual Vitality
We have a total of 116597 members and 553693 ads. There have been 138252340 ad views.
Cebu Classifieds - B3 Carlos Perez Bldg., AC Cortes Ave., Mandaue City 6014, PhilippinesFor advertising, support and questions, please email firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
Move over chess—there's an innovative new strategy-based board game in town. It takes only a few minutes to learn how to play, yet you could spend a lifetime honing your strategies for victory. This new Laser Board Game makes a great activity to bridge the generations as you and your opponent move mirrored game pieces around an 80-square Egyptian themed grid. The goal is to protect your game pieces while eliminating your opponent's by bouncing eye-safe lasers at them through the maze of mirrors you've constructed.
See more details
Item # 200972
The Laser Board Game offers plenty of fun, offensive and defensive twists and turns along the way to make each game an exciting new experience. The Laser Board Game includes 26 mirrored game pieces, two game pieces equipped with a battery-powered laser beams, the gameboard and a storage/presentation/travel box to hold all the pieces neatly until it's time to play again.
• For 2 players
• Includes 28 pieces plus gameboard
• Uses eye-safe lasers
• Awarded Mensa National Competition prize
• Egyptian themed game board
• Includes two CR2032 batteries
• For age 9 and up
Length: 15
Width: 12
Height: 2.1
Weight: 2.1 Lbs
Our Price: $49.99
View Details
Welcome to The Sharper Image
We'd like to offer you 10% OFF as a thank you for shopping with us.
Enter your promo code at checkout and see the savings in your shopping cart.
*Only one promo code allowed per order. Bose products are not eligible for discounts.
Enter your email address to instantly receive your promo code!
Please note: We do not sell or share our customer's email addresses.
Call Us 1-877-202-9337
The Sharper Image® name and logo are registered trademarks.
©The Sharper Image. All Rights Reserved.


text:
Q: Early in your career at UA, you helped make the deal with producer Cubby Broccoli to distribute the James Bond films. And you championed a film — Tom Jones — that won Best Picture. Did you have any idea how successful those projects would be?
A: I don't think anybody can judge it when you're that close to it. Tom Jones was not a complicated situation. The script was terrific. It was the first film I fought for. All the major studios had passed on Bond at various points. It's a very tough business, and a lot of success or failure has to do with things you can't possibly foresee. Anybody who thinks they really have the answers is a fool.
Q: At UA, you signed Woody Allen to his first movie deal. Later you produced The Jerk, Steve Martin's first movie. It seems like you took pride in discovering new artists.
A: Both of them are so talented. They would have become stars without me. But I don't know what you can get more pleasure from than from giving someone the opportunity to fulfill their dreams, and then seeing them succeed.
Q: Of which films are you most proud?
A: There are movies I don't think would have been made had we not done them at United Artists: certainly Midnight Cowboy and Last Tango in Paris.
Q: Are there successes that you think were overlooked?
A: Up in Smoke was probably the most fun for me, on a personal level. I had tried to make a Cheech and Chong movie when I was at UA. It was too soon. Years later, when I was at Paramount, I asked again. I told [their agent] Lou Adler he should direct it. He had never done a movie! We gave him a cameraman. We gave him an editor. The boys trusted him. And of course it was a gigantic hit. We got lucky.
Q: Reading your book, I was struck by the idea that it could make a fun movie, whisking people through 50 years of Hollywood history.
A: [Laughs] I do not see a script in there! But it's sure fun to talk about.
Austin O'Connor writes about entertainment for AARP Media.
- « Previous
- 1
- 2