Politico’s Morning Money has the text of a memo by Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.), outlining his plans for the upcoming conference committee to reconcile the House and Senate financial regulatory reform bills. Frank, who is heading the committee, apologizes to the members who will not make it on and warns that the White House has strong opinions on the conference and the final bill.
He also tells the Democratic members of the House Financial Services Committee he is picking subcommittee chairs to join him as conferees. That would make the eight Democratic members: Frank and Reps. Carolyn Maloney (N.Y.), Paul Kanjorski (Pa.), Luis Gutierrez (Ill.), Maxine Waters (Calif.), Melvin Watt (N.C.), Dennis Moore (Kans.) and Gregory Meeks (N.Y.).
As for likely Republican conferees: The Republican ranking member is Rep. Spencer Bachus (Ala.), who will be on the committee. The subcommittee ranking members are: Scott Garrett (N.J.), Jeb Hensarling (Texas), Shelley Moore Capito (W.Va.), Ron Paul (Texas), Gary Miller (Calif.) and Judy Biggert (Ill.). The top five members by seniority are Bachus, Mike Castle (Del.), Peter King (N.Y.), Edward Royce (Calif.) and Frank Lucas (Okla.).
Here is the full text of the Frank memo:
I enjoy almost all parts of this job of Chairman, but I have just come up against one that is distinctly not enjoyable: having to pick Members of the Committee to recommend to the Speaker to be Conferees. I appreciate the cooperation that has marked our work together as we have dealt with very difficult legislation, and picking and choosing among the Members, many of whom have told me of their interest in being Conferees, would be impossible to do on any rational basis, and I would hate to engender any resentment to spoil what I think has been a very good working relationship.
I have therefore combined Congressional precedent with my own desire to find a selection method that does not introduce divisiveness into our ranks. I am recommending to the Speaker that we have eight Conferees, because I believe an eight to five ratio between us and the Republicans is optimal, and I am recommending that the eight be myself, the Subcommittee Chairs, and Representative Maloney who was until recently a Subcommittee Chair and vacated it at the Speaker’s request to become Chair of the Joint Economic Committee. This follows seniority in general, although not exactly, but by picking the Subcommittee Chairs — those who are now and have held that position — I believe I have a criterion that does not reflect either badly — or well for that matter — on anyone.
I hope that Members who had wanted to be on the Conference will be somewhat consoled by the fact that I do not intend to preside over a situation in which the Conferees are a very distinct unit. I have asked the excellent staff that serves us to prepare by Wednesday a list of the differences between the bill, and I will take that to a caucus on Thursday to discuss it. It is my intention to have regular caucuses during this period — at least once a week and maybe more if necessary — to get a sense of all the Members on the issues that are before us. It is also the case, of course, that we will not be totally autonomous here. We have an administration that feels strongly about this, and I expect that the House leadership will be engaged more than they were last year when health care took up more of their time and when they paid us the compliment of trusting us. Their greater involvement will not imply a lack of trust, but simply the fact that we are down to a few very important issues where the administration will be strongly expressing its view. There is also the fact that the need to keep sixty votes in the Senate will be something of a constraint, and so, I believe, that we who are conferees will be more the agents of collective decision-making than autonomous deciders.
I am also going to be checking with our Parliamentarian. The rules for Conferences are not in existence in a formal sense, I believe, and I believe I will have the right as Chairman of the Conference to call on other Members to speak on occasion. Obviously that cannot be overdone with the large size of our committee, but it will be possible, I believe, for Members where the matter is particularly important to them for a variety of reasons, to address the Conference at some point.
President Obama will award the Gershwin Prize for Popular Song to former Beatles’ vocalist Sir Paul McCartney at the White House East Room 2nd of June. He is the third recipient of the award next to Paul Simon and Stevie Wonder.
A presidential concert will follow dubbed as In Performance at the White House Celebrating the Music of Paul McCartney: The Library of Congress Gershwin Prize. It will be aired on PBS stations, 28th of July 2010 at 8:00pm ET. Performers include the Jonas Brothers, Faith Hill, Stevie Wonder, Jack White, Jerry Seinfield, among others, and McCartney himself.
As for Sir McCartney, this recognition is just one among many that he had received. His contribution to music is no doubt, and in fact he is considered as the most successful songwriter of popular music in the history. There are emerging musicians and compelling artists today, and maybe one, two, or more of them find inspiration in him.
Related posts:
 |
 |
[JURIST] The family of war crimes suspect Ratko Mladic [case materials; JURIST news
archive] will file a claim in the Belgrade District Court [official website, in Serbian] seeking to have the former military leader declared officially dead, according to Serbian media reports [Novosti report, in Serbian] Tuesday. This declaration would allow Mladic’s family to collect his state pension and sell his property. Under Serbian law, an individual can be officially declared dead when he is over the age of 70 and no reliable information on his whereabouts has been discovered for five years. Mladic is 68, but his family is convinced he is no longer alive, as they have not heard from him in over seven years and he was in poor health at that time. A lawyer for the family stated that they will still file the claim and ask the court for leniency so the family can put Mladic’s prosecution behind them. Deputy Serbian War Crimes Prosecutor Bruno Vekaric has dismissed [Press TV report] the family’s request, calling it “speculation,” and stressed that the investigation into the war crimes suspect’s location will continue. Mladic is one of two high-level targets still at large under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) [official website; JURIST news archive] and faces charges of genocide and crimes against humanity for allegedly overseeing the Srebrenica [JURIST news archive] massacre and other war crimes violations during the Bosnian civil war [JURIST news archive].
Earlier this month, the ICTY announced that the Office of the Prosecutor [official website] has filed a motion to amend [JURIST report] the indictment against Mladic. Prosecutors believe that the amended indictment will help speed up the court proceedings once he is captured. The amended indictment includes 11 counts of genocide, crimes against humanity, and violations of the laws and customs of war that took place between 1992-1995. In March, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon [official website] said that the ICTY will continue to operate [JURIST report] beyond its originally planned end date, in part to apprehend both Mladic and political leader Goran Hadzic [case materials], who both face a significant number of charges. Ban estimated that it will be necessary for the court to remain open until 2013.
THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release May 26, 2010
REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT SECOND FUNDRAISING RECEPTION FOR BARBARA BOXER
AND THE DEMOCRATIC SENATORIAL CAMPAIGN COMMITTEE
Fairmont Hotel
San Francisco, California
May 25, 2010
6:53 P.M. PDT
THE PRESIDENT: Hello, California! Thank you! (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you. You doing a little dance? Thank you. Thank you, everybody, thank you. Oh, thank you. Now, it is good to be back. But I resent I didn’t get a chance hear the choir sing. (Laughter.) I was up somewhere. They were working me hard. And I could have used a little lift of the spirit there. (Laughter.)
Now, fortunately, if I’m not mistaken, I recognize Reverend Williams, being here. I know he’s sitting right in front. And I recognize this choir, because I saw you guys a while back when I was here. (Applause.) So I have heard them in the past. To the Glide Methodist Church choir, thank you so much. Reverend Williams, thank you. To musician Brett Dennen, thank you very much for helping out here. (Applause.) Uh-oh, down — yeah, if you’ve got a chair, go ahead and use it. Feel free. Feel free. (Laughter.)
It is wonderful — it is wonderful to be back in California. (Applause.) It’s also wonderful to be back in the home district of one of the greatest Speakers in the history of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. (Applause.)
And it’s good to be here in the home state of my friend, somebody who has been fighting the good fight for this state for so many years, and then you look at her and you realize she started when she was 12 — (laughter) — your outstanding senator, Barbara Boxer. (Applause.)
I talked to Stu, Barbara’s husband, beforehand, and he told me that Barbara has not changed a bit since she first went to Congress, as beautiful as ever. The only difference was, she was actually 5’10” — (laughter) — when she went there, and just got worn down. (Laughter.)
SENATOR BOXER: Worn down, but strong as ever.
THE PRESIDENT: But — that’s okay, I didn’t have any gray hair when I went there. (Laughter.)
SENATOR BOXER: Mr. President, mine turned blonde.
THE PRESIDENT: Right, yours turned blonde. (Laughter.)
Now, it is one of the great privileges, having been a senator, that I had a chance to work alongside Barbara. California has been a leader in promoting hybrids and compact cars and cleaner-burning fuels. And appropriately, you’ve got Senator Barbara Boxer, a sub-compact senator — (laughter) — with a seemingly inexhaustible source of energy. (Applause.) And she already talked about how deeply she cares about the environment, about her work to pursue a clean energy future. And that work has never been more important than it is now. But I also want you to understand, this is a woman with extraordinarily deep passion to fight for all of you on a whole range of issues.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely. (Laughter.) Barbara is somebody who hasn’t forgotten why she went to Washington. (Applause.) She remembers the people of California, the stories she’s heard, the people she’s talked to: the woman without health insurance, the child who is in a substandard school, the guy who’s lost his job.
That’s what she’s passionate about — especially right now — fighting for jobs, jobs right here in California, jobs with good wages, jobs with good benefits. She’s passionate for fighting for California’s families and making sure that everybody here has got a fair shake; that if they’re willing to work hard, that they can reach for that American Dream.
And that’s what I want to talk to you about tonight — because reviving our economy remains the central challenge that we’re facing today. I don’t have to tell you folks here in California, this state has been hit as hard as any state with economic troubles over the past few years. Jobs have been lost in heartbreaking numbers up and down the coast. The housing crisis hit the state with a vengeance. The budget problems have put a further strain on people here at a time when they really need help, and that forces the state government to make painful choices about where to spend, where to save.
The challenges here reflect challenges that are facing people all across America. I’m trying to get out of Washington once a week. (Laughter.) It’s good for me. I mean, there are good things about Washington. I’ve got no commute, which I know you’ll appreciate here in California. (Laughter.)
But it’s good to get out of town, and you talk to everybody, you see the letters that are being sent, and I’m reminded first of all of what we confronted when we got here — when we got into office: 750,000 jobs per month being lost — 750,000. The economy was contracting at 6.5 percent that quarter that I was sworn in, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression.
Now, you’ve heard that said before, but think about that — think about that — this is the worst economic crisis that many of the people in this room have seen in their lifetimes. And the fact is, is that a lot of folks didn’t know what to do. And there were some economists who said that we may be falling over a precipice: The banking sector had completely locked up, no credit was flowing, and we might end up seeing a global depression that rivaled what happened in the 1930s.
And so we had to act quickly. We had to act fast. And unfortunately we didn’t have all the tools that we needed to act fast because you had a previous Congress and a previous administration that had left a $1.3 trillion deficit wrapped up in a bow that turned surpluses into deficits as a consequence of a whole host of irresponsible policies. (Applause.)
These problems that we confronted didn’t come out of nowhere. They didn’t just happen. There was a consequence of policies that had been in place for years, that Barbara’s opponents, that the other party have promoted. And so we had to move fast, and that’s what we did.
On day one, we took the reins and we said are going to make sure that we don’t slip into a Great Depression. And we are —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Move faster on “don’t ask, don’t tell”!
AUDIENCE: Boo!
THE PRESIDENT: It’s good to see you again.
AUDIENCE: Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
THE PRESIDENT: I have to say — you know, I saw this guy down in L.A. — (laughter) — at a Barbara Boxer event about a month and a half ago, and I would — two points I want to make. Number one, he should — I hate to say this, but he really should, like, buy a ticket to — if he wants to demonstrate, buy a ticket to a guy who doesn’t support his point of view. (Laughter.) And then you can yell as much as you want there. (Applause.)
The other point is maybe he didn’t read the newspapers – (laughter) — because we are working with Congress as we speak to roll back “don’t ask, don’t tell.” (Applause.) I actually think he does read the newspapers because he wasn’t as — his heart didn’t seem in it. (Laughter.) He said do it faster. It’s like, come on, man, I’m dealing with Congress here. It takes a little bit of time. (Laughter.)
Where was I? (Laughter.) I was going down Memory Lane. (Laughter.) So, we ended up initiating a series of steps — the largest investment in clean energy in our history. (Applause.) Restoring the primacy of science and investing in research and development, the largest investment in infrastructure since Eisenhower built the Interstate Railway System. (Applause.) The largest investment in education by the federal government in our history. (Applause.) The most progressive — the most progressive tax cut in our history to restore a sense of fairness to our tax system. (Applause.) Help for states so that they didn’t have to lay off teachers and firefighters and police officers, including right here in California. (Applause.)
Talk to Governor Schwarzenegger if you don’t believe the kinds of help that was involved — and we did all this in the first month. (Applause.) The first month. And just as an aside, we passed legislation to make sure that 4 million kids could get health insurance that didn’t have it before. (Applause.) We passed the Lilly Ledbetter law that put forward the basic principle that an equal’s day — that a day’s work should get an equal day’s pay regardless of whether it’s a man or a woman who is doing the work. (Applause.) Made sure tobacco companies couldn’t market to kids. Made sure that have the toughest credit card anti-fraud provisions that we had seen, anti-housing fraud provisions. Biggest national service investment. All that we did in the first few months. (Applause.)
Now — and that was before we got to health care to make sure that every American — (applause) — had the chance to get decent health care, and people weren’t going bankrupt when they got sick.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re welcome. (Applause.)
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You’re welcome. (Applause.) It’s nice to feel appreciated once in a while. (Applause.) So — now, here’s the thing, though —
AUDIENCE MEMBER: We love you, Obama!
THE PRESIDENT: I love you back. (Applause.) But here’s the thing, California — we’ve still got work to do. Because of those folks that I talked about — unemployment in California and all across the country is still unacceptably high. People are still losing their homes. Folks are still seeing premium increases on their health care. And we’ve got some big issues that Congress hasn’t yet tackled in the way that we know they have to be tackled if we want a better future for our kids and our grandkids.
Now, some of you heard I went to the Republican Caucus today. It was a warm and cuddly meeting. (Laughter.) The last time I appeared, it was before the House Republican Caucus and we agreed to let the press in on that one. This one not so much. (Laughter.) And — but I wanted to talk to them about the fact that as busy as people have been, as hard as we’ve been working, we’ve got more work to do. And everybody knows it in their gut. Everybody knows that we are at an inflection point in our history, that we’ve got a choice between going back to the same status quo, except the status quo won’t work any more. We’re not going to be able to run an economy based on maxing out your credit cards and taking out home equity loans and running up debt, and the financial sector getting exorbitant profits based on a bunch of financial shenanigans.
We know that if we want to build a real future in an economy this competitive with China and India and Brazil and other countries on the rise, that we’re going to have to go back to basics. We’ve got to fix our education system. We’ve got to make sure that every young person in America has a chance to go to college. (Applause.) We’ve got to make sure — and by the way, you may have missed it during the health care debate, but we added billions of dollars in funding to student loans by cutting out the financial middlemen. (Applause.) That was just — that didn’t even get front-page news. (Applause.)
We’ve got to strengthen our community colleges. (Applause.) We’re going to have work to do implementing our health care bill. And we’ve also got some critical issues that all of us have in mind right now. And I’m going to mention two — and I mentioned these to the Republican Caucus.
So the first is energy. (Applause.) Now, there’s not a person who has just felt that sense of despair in watching the broadcasts about oil spill down in the Gulf. Nobody is more upset than me, because ultimately, like any President, when this happens on your watch, then every day you are thinking, how does this get solved?
And so we’ve sent over a thousand people down to the Gulf, boom, equipment, legal advisors, helping fishermen who have lost their livelihoods as a consequence of this. And we are now having to do a thoroughgoing review to see how it is that oil companies can say that they know how to handle these problems when it turns out actually that they don’t. (Applause.) And that’s a responsibility of government.
But we also have to face a broader fact. There’s a reason why those folks are out there drilling a mile down in the water, and then when they hit ground a mile down, they have to go another mile down to get oil. That’s an expensive proposition, it’s a dangerous proposition, it’s a risky proposition. Why are we doing it? Well, we’re doing it because we have not made a transition to a new energy future. (Applause.)
And we’ve been putting it off for decade after decade after decade. And it is about time that we said to ourselves that we’re ready to make a change on behalf of the future of our children and our grandchildren. (Applause.) And it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen tomorrow. It won’t happen next week. But if we start investing in clean energy technology and solar and wind and biodiesel, if we invest in hybrid plug-ins that can get 150 miles a gallon, if we start making our buildings more efficient and if we start finally saying to ourselves we can’t just let everybody pollute for free — (applause) — if we follow science and we follow some common-sense principles, then, look, oil is still going to be in the energy mix. We’re not going to eliminate that completely. But we are going to over time transition to ourselves and we will become more energy efficient, which will be good for our national security, it will be good for our economy, it will be good for our environment, it will be good for our future.
And by the way, we can create millions of jobs right here in the United States of America investing in a new clean energy future. (Applause.) And I told the Republicans, I am ready to work with you right now to get this done. (Applause.)
Second issue is immigration. Now, folks are out there looking at the Arizona law, and it’s divided the country.
AUDIENCE: Boo!
THE PRESIDENT: Now, I’ve been very clear. I think the Arizona law was a mistake. (Applause.) And my Justice Department is looking very carefully at the nature of this law.
But I understand the frustrations of folks in Arizona. The fact of the matter is, is that for decades we keep on talking about solving the problems of the border, and we don’t. Truth of the matter is, is that you’ve got hundreds of thousands of undocumented workers coming over the border, and that gets people stressed. You’ve got employers who are exploiting undocumented workers all across America, actively recruiting them and often taking advantage of them when they get here.
So there is a whole bunch of work that has to be done. But we can’t solve the problem by playing politics. We can’t solve the problem by demagogueing the issue.
And so what I told my Republican colleagues is, look, I’ll be there with you in terms of securing the border. That’s part of my responsibility as Commander-in-Chief and as President. But you’ve got to meet me on solving the problem long term. It’s not enough to just talk about National Guard down at the border. You’ve got to talk about how we’re going to hold employers accountable and how are we going to take the folks who are living in the shadows right now, and say to them, you’ve got a responsibility, you’ll have to pay a fine, you’ll have to pay back taxes, you’ll have to learn English. But we are going to give you a pathway in order for you to be a part of this community legally. That is something we’ve got to work on together. (Applause.)
Now, California, the last thing I said to my Republican colleagues was you don’t even have to meet me halfway. (Laughter.) I’ll bring most Democrats on these issues. I’m just looking for eight or 10 of you — (laughter and applause) — you know? I mean, the day has passed when I expected this to be a full partnership. I mean, it’s just — you know, I understand the strategy of sitting on the sidelines. And let’s face it. Politically, it hasn’t been bad for them. It made a lot of people forget how we got into this mess in the first place, just sitting there and saying no to everything.
Well, Barbara points out, I’ve said this before, you know, folks — here you got folks driving a car in the ditch, and then we’re out there in the mud pulling the car out of the ditch, and they’re sitting there comfortable, drinking on a Slurpee or something — (laughter) — saying, you know, you’re not pulling the car out of the ditch fast enough. (Laughter.) You’re not doing that the right way. When you put your shoulder behind, you got to lean into it. (Laughter.)
So then we finally get the car out of the ditch, and they want the keys back. (Laughter.) Say, no, you can’t have the keys. (Applause.) You can’t — you don’t know how to drive. You can’t have the keys. (Applause.) Can’t have them. If you want to get in, we’ll give you a ride. (Laughter.) But we’re not going to let you drive.
AUDIENCE MEMBER: No keys. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: No keys. No, you don’t get the keys back. (Laughter.)
But here’s my point, look — and then after the meeting, we got some of the usual stuff about, well, he talks about bipartisanship, but we don’t really see partisanship in the financial regulatory bill, you know, it just passed with mostly Democratic votes, few Republican votes to break the filibuster.
Look, understand this about bipartisanship — I have a track record in my legislative career of working with folks across the aisle. And I also, by the way, am sympathetic to the fact that it’s hard for Republicans to work with me right now because there are members of their base who, if somebody even smiles at me, they think, you’re a traitor. (Laughter.) You smiled at Obama. You’re nice to him. You were polite. And if you’re rude to Obama, we can raise money. (Laughter.) So the incentive structure right now for cooperation within the Republican Party is not real strong. So I’m sympathetic to that.
But when we talk about bipartisanship, what we mean is, is that there’s going to be some negotiation, and, no, the Republicans aren’t going to get their way on everything. And there are going to be some times where we disagree. And when we disagree, if we’re not doing everything the way they want and they say, I’m going to take my ball and go home, and I won’t vote for anything, that’s not a failure of bipartisanship on our part. There’s got to be some give on the other side, particularly when you drove the car into the ditch. (Applause.)
You know, we can’t just go back to business as usual. So on immigration meet me a quarter of the way. (Laughter.) We’ll deal with border security issues — and I’ll be serious about it. And by the way, sometimes I’ll get attacked in my own base, right, because sometimes some of the things I’ve done some of you guys aren’t happy with.
But what I said to them today was, if I’m willing to make decisions that aren’t always comfortable for me politically, I need you to make some decisions that aren’t always comfortable for you politically. (Applause.)
And if they’re willing to do that, we can get immigration reform done. And it needs to be done — comprehensive immigration reform. (Applause.) And if they are willing to do it, we can get an energy package that puts us on the path to a clean energy future. (Applause.)
So I remain hopeful. Remember hope? (Applause.) I know it’s been 18 tough months. And I know I’ve got more gray hair. (Laughter.) I know some folks say, well, you know, he’s not as cool as he was. (Laughter.) When they had all the posters around and everything. Now I’ve got a Hitler mustache on the posters. (Laughter.) That’s quite a change. (Laughter.)
You know, my approval ratings kind of start sinking. And some people are just not entirely satisfied. You know what, the health care bill wasn’t everything I wanted. It’s the biggest deal since Medicare, but, you know — (laughter) — it wasn’t everything I wanted.
Look, I understand. I understand that, but remember what the campaign was about — hope, change. People weren’t paying attention to me when I said change is hard. People — a lot of folks, they just missed that part. (Laughter.) They were like, hope, change — (laughter) — and they thought, nice swearing-in, you got Bruce Springsteen singing. (Laughter.) Everybody is feeling good. This is going to happen fast. (Laughter.)
Well, no. If it was easy, it would’ve happened before. If it was easy, we would have put in place mileage standards on cars 30 years ago, 40 years ago, 50 years ago — on trucks. We didn’t do it, because it’s hard.
And it’s hard not just because of the special interests, although they’re there, but it’s also hard because, you know what, everybody gets kind of comfortable with the devil they know. And change can be scary. And people can be frightened. And issues can be demagogued. And the talking head media debate can get everybody confused, and cynical, and feeling like, you know what, nothing is changing.
The fact of the matter is, over the last year and a half, we have moved this country in powerful ways. (Applause.) And the reason we’ve been able to do it is because I’ve had a partner, Barbara Boxer of California, who has fought with me and marched with me and held hands with me. And if you want to see that change happen for the next 18 months, and the next 18 months after that, and the next 18 months after that, well, then doggone it, reelect Barbara Boxer to be your United States senator.
Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. God bless America. (Applause.)
END 7:23 P.M. PDT
Brendan has a question for the Consumerist hive mind. He wants to buy a large-ish HDTV, but isn’t sure that his usual method of buying technology–buy the cheapest thing he can get his hands on, and count on it not to break for a year or two–will work at these price points.
I’m currently in the market for a cheap HDTV. Honestly, the real appeal to me is the space-saving feature of the flat screen. My usual practice with electronics is to buy the cheapest thing I can find and hope it lasts for a year or two. In the past, I’ve purchased the cheapest DVD player walmart offered and it turned out to be pretty good. I once bought a $35 Craig DVD player from the grocery store and I had to pause the movies halfway through to let the sound catch up to the video. More recently, I bought a KWorld media player which stopped working via coax output and is prone to overheating. I’m not too upset by pissing away less than $100 on something kind of crappy as long as it lasts for a while – even if that means some modifications or maintenance on my part. However, I’m not prepared to drop $800 on a 50″ plasma that won’t last until Christmas.
My question to you is this: Should I just go to Walmart or Best Buy or Stop and Shop and pick up the cheapest thing over 32″ that they have or should I spend the extra $100 on something that will outlast the technology with which it was built?
I did exactly the thing Brendan describes–I bought a Vizio on clearance at Walmart, of all places. I’m happy with my decision, but it’s only been a few weeks. Most of you have probably owned large, flat televisions for much longer, though, so share your wisdom with Brendan.
Opel
Germany has yet to put forth a final decision on aid to Opel, leaving thousands of jobs at the GM unit unstable at best. Opel, which has been losing money for quite sometime, seeks aid from Germany so that it may better compete in the tough European auto market, but GM’s recent rallying performance has made it difficult for the company to get the German Aid they need. GM however, only wants to contribute half of the 3.7 billion needed Euros, saying that Opel is a European company, for European taxpayers to worry about.
Three of the four German states that house Opel plants are ready to grant guarantees, raising pressure on the national government to do so.
GM came under much heat last year, as it scrapped its plan to sell the unit, and instead asked the European workers and governments to contribute to the cost of a return to profitability.
Germany is apprehensive about funneling taxpayer funds into the company although it is the home country to half of the 48,000 employees of the company, because of GM having reneged on a sale of the unit to Canadian supplier, Magna International, which the government set up.
– By: Stephen Calogera
Source: Automotive News (Subscription Required)
Couple a white pair of these headphone stethoscopes (or are they stethoscope headphones?) with a blue pinnafore and job done, you’re practically Jack from Lost. Only, listening to Fleetwood Mac. But no-one needs to know that. More »
Stethoscope – Headphones – Audio – Shopping – Consumer Electronics
Todayâs decision to approve the $82.5 million port expansion at Fishermanâs Landing in Gladstone is disastrous for the areaâs threatened dugongs and rare inshore dolphins.
The Fishermanâs Landing Northern Expansion Project will bury critical sea grass habitat within a designated dugong sanctuary under tonnes of mud and rock, and will have a major impact on the regionâs coastal ecosystems.
âThe local dugong population at Gladstone depends entirely on sea grass meadows, a fact that was recognised in the declaration of the Roddâs Bay Dugong Protected Area in 2002,â said Lydia Gibson, WWFâs Tropical Marine Species Manager.
âThis development will smother a large area of these sea grass meadows under a thick layer of mud and rock, and remove this critical habitat forever.â
The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species classifies dugongs as âvulnerable to extinctionâ at a global scale, and Australian tropical waters are considered one of the speciesâ last strongholds.
WWF has been urging governments to conduct an overarching Strategic Environmental Assessment under section 146 of the EPBC Act to adequately address cumulative impacts in the Curtis Island Gladstone Port Region. This has not happened.
The area is also home to the rare Indo-Pacific humpback dolphin, which is particularly vulnerable to local threats. The loss of just a few individuals could see this local population disappear.
âThere are over 100 major coastal developments proposed for the Queensland region. Without a strategic approach to managing the impacts on wildlife, it will be death by a thousand cuts for marine turtles, inshore dolphins and dugongs,â Ms Gibson said.
âIf the Queensland Government is serious about protecting the unique wildlife of Queensland they really have to put a stop to the piece-meal approach to coastal development, adopt a more coordinated approach and designate sanctuaries that protect species from potentially devastating impacts of major coastal developments.â
For further information:
Charlie Stevens, WWF Media Manager â Queensland, 0424 649 689
Lydia Gibson, WWF Tropical Marine Species Manager, 0406 382 498
Notes to the editor:
⢠Today Australiaâs dugong population is only three per cent of its size in the 1960s.
⢠Because they are long lived and slow to mature, population growth is extremely slow and can only ever increase by five per cent a year.
⢠When their habitat quality is reduced (less foraging grounds due to increased coastal development) females dugongs will respond by having less young.
⢠There is a substantial sea grass meadow in the area north of Fishermanâs Landing, consisting of Halophila sp and Zostera sp assemblages1. WWF-Australia is extremely concerned that this proposal combined with scenarios outlined in the Western Basin Strategic Dredging and Disposal Project (WBSDD) – which involves further dredging of shipping channels, swing basins, and construction and management of a proposed Fishermanâs Landing dredge material management area – would be extremely significant and damaging to the marine ecology of the area, its biodiversity and to commercial and recreational fishing in the area
⢠Current proposals associated with the dredging of new shipping channels in the Gladstone Port and reclamation of land north of Fishermanâs Landing could result in the destruction of over 400 ha, or 7.0% of coastal sea grasses in the Western Basin of Gladstone Harbour. The loss of this habitat – within a designated Dugong Management Area would be of major significance to the coastal ecosystems of the region. On this basis, WWF-Australia strongly believes that this proposal is unnecessary and unwarranted and approval for the reclamation of Fishermenâs Landing should therefore be denied.
While politicians and a lot of companies are slowly implementing climate protection measures, the public can now play the online-game CEO2 – launched by financial service provider Allianz and WWF â to test potential climate change reduction business strategies.
In the game, users can slip into the role of a CEO and show which business strategies work out to reduce carbon, reduce risks and increase long-term profitability.
The aim of the game is to identify which investments at what time will set the course for profitable growth in the low carbon economy of the future.
CEO2 shows the possible impacts of business decisions in the chemical, automobile, utility and finance industry during the next 20 years. Playersâ success is measured according to the development of the stock price and carbon emissions.
According the recent Report on Energy and Climate Policy in Europe (RECIPE) drawn up by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research and supported by Allianz and WWF, Europe especially could profit from climate protection if it sets the framework for middle- and long-term reductions of greenhouse gas emissions.
CEO2 was developed by Allianz and WWF to show the long-term connections between investment cycles and carbon reduction strategies and decisions, and to reach a broad public audience.
The game is available on www.ceo2-game.com for free. It was developed by the Berlin communications agency LGM Interactive.
For further information:
Sigrid Goldbrunner, WWF Germany, +49 30 308 742-0, [email protected]
The latest National Greenhouse Accounts show the greatest risk to Australia achieving vital cuts to carbon pollution is political hot air.
WWF-Australia points out that the Accounts reveal the amount of national carbon pollution is still growing compared to the baseline year of 1990.
âAny slow down in the rate of carbon pollution growth is more likely due to a slower economy rather than political progress,â said Paul Toni, WWFâs Development and Sustainability Manager.
âOn one hand we have Senator Wong acknowledging that a price on carbon will be essential to reverse the growth in pollution, yet on the other hand the Government has chosen to delay any more progress towards an emissions trading scheme until at least 2013.
âUntil we see all sides of politics making real efforts to reduce Australiaâs carbon pollution, the only thing they are contributing is hot air.â
WWF-Australia continues to ask all politicians to support an emissions trading scheme which would cap the total amount of carbon pollution produced, then reduce it over time.
Without this system in place to put a price on carbon, Australia is in jeopardy of not only missing its target set out under the Kyoto Protocol, but more importantly of scuttling any chance of a meaningful global agreement to replace the Protocol when it runs out in 2012.
âAs a de-facto election campaign begins in earnest, we want all of Australiaâs politicians to remember this is unfinished business. Australia needs a price on carbon by 2011. Hot air wonât get us there,â said Mr Toni.
For more information: Jonathon Larkin, Senior Media Officer, 0410 221 410, [email protected]
| Published: | May 26, 2010 |
| Paper Released: | May 2010 |
| Authors: | Muriel Niederle, Alvin E. Roth and M. Utku Unver |
In many professional labor markets, most entry-level hires begin work at around the same time: for example, soon after graduating from college or graduate or professional school. Despite a common start time, offers can be made and contracts can be signed at any time prior to the start of employment, sometimes well over a year before employment will begin. “Unraveling” happens in markets in which competition for the elite firms and workers is fierce, but the quality of workers may not be reliably revealed until after a good deal of hiring has already been completed. Thus unraveling is sometimes a cause of market failure, particularly when contracts come to be determined before critical information is available. In this paper Muriel Niederle of Stanford, Alvin E. Roth of HBS, and M. Utku Ünver of Boston College consider conditions related to supply and demand that tend to facilitate or mitigate unraveling. Key concepts include:
Markets sometimes unravel, with offers becoming inefficiently early. Often this is attributed to competition arising from an imbalance of demand and supply, typically excess demand for workers. However this presents a puzzle, since unraveling can only occur when firms are willing to make early offers and workers are willing to accept them. We present a model and experiment in which workers’ quality becomes known only in the late part of the market. However, in equilibrium, matching can occur (inefficiently) early only when there is comparable demand and supply: a surplus of applicants, but a shortage of high quality applicants.
48 pages
Fast signal sources are preferably connected by shielded coaxial cables and connectors with matching impedance to digitizers to obtain best signal quality. Only with this type of connection one can avoid crosstalk and signal reflections with signals that have frequencies in the upper several hundred MHz area.
When using PC based digitizers with their limited free space on the front plate and when also taking the standard demand for additional digital signals like clock, trigger or digital inputs into account, there are only a few connector solutions on the market that are suitable. SMB and MMCX connections are an easy to use and space-saving solution, used by many manufacturers including Spectrum GmbH. All M3i series cards of Spectrum are equipped with these connectors offering one or two analog channels and sampling rates between 1 GS/s at 8 bit resolution up 400 MS/s at 14 bit resolution. In addition to this there are five connectors for supporting digital signals.
Spectrum now offers a new option for the complete M3i range of PCI/PCI-X and PCI Express cards with professional screwed SMA connections. This option is primary intended for OEM and industrial users but can be helpful also in the area of research and development. This international standard connection with a stable screw type coupling and a very good shielding allows a reliable connection of high frequency signals even in rough industry environment or vibrating installations.
The fast digitizers are available in different versions with one or two channels, sampling rates from 100 MS/s up to 1 GS/s and resolutions between 8 bit and 14 bit. The standard version is already equipped with 256 MByte of on-board memory which can be extended up to 4 GByte. Each installed analog channel has its own pre-amplifier offering a wide variety of input ranges between ±50 mV (±200 mV) and ±10 V and several software switchable settings like 50 ohm/1 MOhm or AC/DC coupling. The cards are delivered with drivers for Windows 2000, XP, Vista and 7 as well as several Linux installations like OpenSuse, Fedora or Debian. 32 bit and 64 bit versions of all operating systems are natively supported by the Spectrum drivers.
Crutch handle
Bi-material injection system for moulding component “Crutch handle”.Assembling nozzles DL2500 and valve gate nozzles ET4000. Both nozzles are suited to customer’s mould housing.
Injected materials PP and SBS.
Pictuers of the parts are available on our website www.emp.it, under the menu “NEWS”. Rif.ANG7001243.
Lindsey Graham: A Puzzling Man
The politics of the BP oil spill keep getting more confusing.
Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is saying that the spill has prompted President Obama to finally get on board with the American Power Act and “thump the bully pulpit to urge Senate action” at a meeting with Republicans on Tuesday. However, Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., now says that only a small energy bill is possible because the oil spill has made the offshore drilling provisions in the measure a difficult sell. Okay, so why not abandon the drilling provisions?
In fact, Graham wants more drilling than is currently in the bill.
But Graham, who helped write the bill but later backed out, knows that those provisions mean that Democrats such as Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., will back out of the bill.
In an interview with Reuters before the president met with Republican senators, Graham said that he worried that the American Power Act restricts “eastern Gulf exploration in a way different than our original purpose.”
Separately, Graham said he is waiting for a final accounting of the Gulf spill and how to prevent it in the future.
Graham’s shifting positions prompted Jeff Bingaman, D-N.M., to say that he’s confused by the use of the Gulf spill to justify not supporting the bill.
Bingaman told E&E Daily (via Climate Progress)
I favor plugging the leak. I favor stopping the spill. But it’s hard to say why the failure to complete the investigation of that spill would be a justification for not limiting greenhouse gas emissions. It seems to me a stretch.
Filed under: Marketing/Advertising, Videos, Mazda, Humor
We love kids… other people’s kids, that is. Yours truly doesn’t have any progeny of his own to look after, so the need for a vehicle that has loads of interior space is mostly lost on me. If you do have some screaming little’uns to look after, though, your vehicular choices suddenly become a bit narrower in focus, and things like folding rear seats, power liftgates and rear-seat entertainment systems begin to look less like unnecessary expenses and more like valuable life- and time-savers.
Regardless of whether or not you have kids of your own, you’ve surely been trapped inside a moving vehicle full of the little buggers. Assuming that’s the case, we’ll step a bit further out on the limb and figure that you’ve had your own thoughts on how best to deal with the, ahem… problem. Mazda has a suggestion – see for yourself by watching the video pasted after the break. Like that one? Click here to see more funny commercials from veryfunnyads.com.
[Source: veryfunnyads.com]
Continue reading Funny Car Commercial of the Day: Mazda silences the kids
Funny Car Commercial of the Day: Mazda silences the kids originally appeared on Autoblog on Wed, 26 May 2010 08:59:00 EST. Please see our terms for use of feeds.
Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments
LaCie wants to ensure that your data is safe. Like really safe. The company took its Rugged hard drive line, added a fingerprint scanner and 128-bit AES encryption and in turn, made what might be the Mad Max of hard drives.
The drive comes in both 500GB and 1TB flavors, but alas neither USB 3.0 or eSATA is available although the drive does rock Firewire in addition to USB 2.0. All the extra security and manly toughness costs a bit more with with the 500GB version retailing for $189 and the 1TB costing $299. It’s obviously up to you if you need the equivalent of the A-Team protecting your data.
Patrick Swayze’s widow has teamed up with Extra TV to help the critically and terminally ill as a patient advocate.
Lisa Niemi, who nursed Swayze through his final days as he battled pancreatic cancer, has been added to the Lifechangers Team on the syndicated entertainment newsmagazine. Lisa’s job is to provide emotional and physical support to people who need it and to ensure that they’re receiving the best treatment possible.
In her own way, Lisa’s honoring her late love.
“For all of my husband’s illness, I’d remember things he had forgotten. He thought he lost his appetite, but I said, ‘No honey, that isn’t the way it worked. I had lists. I had the medications. I knew just how much he needed, the what, when, where and why,” says the former dancer, who was married to the Ghost star for more than 30 years before his death last September.
“I was an advocate for Patrick because I didn’t know any other way to be. But, during that time, I learned that getting the right help involves asking the right questions, and sometimes that’s the hardest thing for the patient to do,” Lisa added.
The grieving widow’s first assignment is helping a young woman fighting a blood disease.
