Category: News

This is a guest post by Darlene Cavalier, a writer and senior adviser at Discover Magazine. Darlene holds a Masters degree from the University of Pennsylvania, and is a former Philadelphia 76ers cheerleader. She founded ScienceCheerleader.com and cofounded ScienceForCitizens.net to make it possible for lay people to contribute to science. Happy Thursday. Very pleased to be filling in for Sheril this month. These are big shoes to fill, to say the least. During my time time with you, I hope my writings provide a bit of inspiration, provocation, or, failing that, some entertainment to brighten your day. All I ask in return is that you keep doing what you do so well here: share your ideas and comments. Some of you (two, three?) may know me as the Science Cheerleader, a persona who advocates–and creates mechanisms–for public participation in science and science policy. These are broad terms with multiple definitions, depending on the author’s intention. Let’s dive right into one of this author’s intentions: to create a way for citizens and experts to participate in assessments of emerging technologies. Citizens, your time has come! On this day in history, Aretha Franklin released her hit song, Respect. And on THIS day, respect for your …

Hedge fund manager Phillip Jabre is way more optimtistic about opportunities in Spain and Portugal than most people.

“People are putting too high a probability on risk. They are too scared,” he told Reuters. “It is a dream market for a stock picker. It’s great.”

He believes that “a consensual solution on how to address the debt” in Greece will be reached soon and it’ll lift southern European stocks. So everyone should just chill out with the negativity.

“The closer you get to the Mediterranean coast, the closer you get to hot water.”

“There are very big banks that, because they are based in Spain, Portugal or Italy, people don’t want to touch them. But they are very cheap,” he said.

So people are needlessly freaking out.

Join the conversation about this story »

See Also:

• The Advantages Of Being Able To Live In Your Hedge Fund’s Office
• Einhorn’s Greenlight Destroys The Wall Street Journal For Paranoid "Yellow Journalism" Piece On Hedge Fund Collusion
• SEC Brings Charges In Ridiculously Outlandish Fake Hedge Fund — Charges Include Forging George Soros

(This is a guest post from the author’s blog.)

Meet the four person Jones family, which after taxes had $100,000 of income last year.  For some strange reason, 15-year old Billy Jones is not allowed to work or earn any income.  For some even stranger reason, Billy’s parents give him an allowance of about $50 per day, totaling $18,000 last year.  Billy’s parents also gave him a credit card with no apparent credit limit.  Billy spent $20,000 last year, therefore running up $2,000 of credit card debt.  (Billy is spoiled rotten.)

This year the Jones family expects to have $105,000 of after-tax income.  Billy announces that he plans to spend $21,000 this year, the same proportion of the total family income (20%) as last year.  His parents shrug and increase his allowance to $18,900, the same 18% of total family income as last year.  Billy therefore expects to add $2,100 of credit card debt this year.  He also announces that when he was five years old he promised his friends he would drive them wherever they wanted once he turned 16, so he expects his spending will soon grow by $2,000 per year.  He explains to his parents he’ll just put the gas costs on his credit card if they don’t increase his allowance.

Billy’s parents look at his credit card statements and freak out.  They realize that they co-signed his credit card application, and they are therefore ultimately responsible for Billy’s debt if he cannot pay it from his allowance.  They sit down with him to discuss how to bring his credit card debt into line.  It’s not the $2,000 of existing debt that worries them.  It’s the continued borrowing, and the expected increased future borrowing once he gets his driver’s license next year.  They are worried about Billy’s annual deficits and his growing debt.  They track his borrowing with a graph they hang on the refrigerator door.

Billy explains that if they are worried about his borrowing, the answer is simple:  increase his allowance.  That can reduce or even eliminate his future deficits.  Next year his parents need to raise his allowance by $2,000 so that his annual credit card borrowing does not increase.  It will probably be even more in future years, because he plans to have many friends and drive them many places.  Cutting his spending and increasing his allowance will both reduce his future borrowing, and Billy would prefer that his parents increase his allowance because it’s easier and less painful for Billy.  This will allow him to keep his longstanding promise to his friends.  They’re counting on him.

Billy’s parents realize that Billy’s annual borrowing, his annual deficits and increased credit card debt are not the actual problem to be solved.  Billy’s increased borrowing is a symptom of his underlying problem, which is his increased spending.  They see why it’s a mistake to focus only on the credit card debt and additional borrowing, because that leads Billy to conclude that allowance increases and spending cuts are equally valid solutions.

A little bit wiser, Billy’s parents now explain that every dollar of additional allowance for Billy means less for the rest of the family.  If Billy cuts his spending, his future annual credit card deficits will decline.  If Billy’s parents increase his allowance, his credit card deficits will also decline, but the rest of the family (including little Suzy) will suffer.  Billy’s parents explain that they care about the promises Billy has made to his friends.  They also care about the interests of the rest of the family, and they must balance those competing interests.  They tell Billy they are particularly worried about the projected future costs of his promise to drive his friends all over town beginning next year.  Maybe he needs to rethink that promise so that he does not make the rest of the Jones family suffer through some combination of higher allowances and credit card debt.

Billy’s problem is not his credit card borrowing.  It is not that his allowance is too small.  Billy’s problem is his increased spending, now and in the future.  That higher spending can be paid either by bigger allowances this year, or by borrowing more using his credit card.  Billy’s allowance and his credit card borrowing are the results of his initial decision about how much to spend.  Bigger allowances for Billy this year mean less money this year for Mom, Dad, and little Suzy.  More credit card debt will require bigger future allowances to pay it off, which will mean less money in the future for Mom, Dad, and Suzy.

Billy’s parents recognize that the combination of an allowance plus an apparently unlimited credit limit lead Billy to make irresponsible spending commitments.  They shift their attention and family debate from Billy’s credit card borrowing to his spending habits.  They make decisions about how much Billy will be allowed to spend.  Once they have decided that, they then allocate that spending between current allowance and credit card borrowing, to determine how much the rest of the family will have available to spend this year, and how much in future years.  They still care and are concerned about his annual deficits, and they still track them on the refrigerator door.  But they move that graph down to make room for another graph to track Billy’s spending habits.  They know that if they get Billy’s spending under control, then the allowances and credit card borrowing will automatically fall into place and the rest of the family’s interests will be protected, now and in the future.

Billy complains about having to cut his spending.  Billy’s friends complain even louder, and tell Billy his parents are mean and selfish for forcing him to break a 10 year old promise.  And yet as Billy’s parents consider the future of the entire Jones family, they know they are now on track to responsible family finances.

Tomorrow we will look at how Billy is spending his parents’ money and the promises he has made to his friends.

Read more from economist Keith Hennessey –>

Join the conversation about this story »

by Matt Wasson

Cross-posted from iLoveMountains.org

A month ago, before the nation’s attention was drawn to the tragedies at the Upper Big Branch Mine in West Virginia and the oil rig off the Louisiana coast, the EPA issued a blockbuster announcement about a strict new guidance for the permitting of mountaintop removal mines in Appalachia. The announcement left many people—reporters, politicians, and the general public alike—confused whether or not the EPA had just put an end to mountaintop removal. The announcement generated headlines ranging from a fairly modest “E.P.A. to Limit Water Pollution From Mining” in the New York Times to “New regulations will put an end to mountaintop mining?” in the Guardian.

Certainly at the press conference EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson used some strong language:

Coal communities should not have to sacrifice their environment or their health or their economic future to mountaintop mining. They deserve the full protection of our clean water laws.

Mountaintop removal mine site above route 23 in Pike County, KentuckyPhoto courtesy iLoveMountains.orgOn a recent trip through eastern Kentucky, set up by our good friends at Kentuckians For The Commonwealth, the answer to whether mountaintop removal in Appalachia has come to an end was abundantly obvious.

The photo of a new active mountaintop removal mine looming above Route 23 in Pike County, Kentucky, at right, tells the story.

(All photos in this post were taken on April 18th in Kentucky: Here’s a link a to flickr photo set from that trip)

To the extent that some in the media overstated the impact of the EPA’s new guidance, they can be forgiven. During the press conference, Jackson herself said, “You’re talking about no or very few valley fills that are going to meet standards like this.” 

Valley fills are the typical disposal sites for the waste that is generated when coal companies blow the tops off mountains to access thin seams of coal. As community activist Judy Bonds of the organization Coal River Mountain Watch describes it, “A valley fill is an upside down mountain turned inside out.” Most—but not all—mountaintop removal mines require valley fills.

But Jackson was also very clear that this was not a blanket ban on mountaintop removal permitting and that the guidance would not apply to permits that had already been granted. The standards Jackson said would lead to “no or very few valley fills” establish limits on the permissible level of stream water conductivity. Conductivity is a measure of salt—and an indicator of metals including toxic and heavy metals—in water. Remember the experiment where you put salt in a glass of water to make it conduct electricity and light a bulb?

Toxic runoff from a valley fill in eastern KentuckyPhoto courtesy iLoveMountains.orgA plethora of recent scientific research has shown that conductivity higher than about five times the normal level downstream from valley fills is associated with severe impairment of the ecological communities in Appalachian headwater streams. The photo to the right that I took below a valley fill in Magoffin County, Kentucky, illustrates the trouble these standards create for coal companies. According to a huge compilation of scientific studies that the EPA simultaneously released with their guidance, conductivity levels below Appalachian valley fills average around 10 times normal levels. The bright orange water coming out of this valley fill indicates enormously high levels of iron, which in turn suggests both high conductivity levels and high levels of toxic and heavy metals regulated under the Clean Water Act.

To be sure, the EPA’s move is a big first step that provides immediate protection to Appalachian families threatened with new mountaintop removal permits above their homes. It’s a tourniquet that will stop the hemorrhaging, but here are five reasons why this guidance doesn’t immediately or permanently put an end to mountaintop removal:

The EPA’s action will not affect permits that have already been issued. Moreover, an excellent piece of reporting by Charleston Gazette reporter Ken Ward revealed that those existing permits will allow some companies to continue mountaintop removal operations without a hitch for the next couple of years.
Not all mountaintop removal mines require valley fills and coal companies are already using loopholes by which they can obliterate miles of streams without the need to obtain a valley fill permit. The million or so acres of wholesale destruction that coal companies drove through a narrow loophole in the Surface Mine Control and Reclamation Act since 1977 is testament to their skill and creativity at exploiting loopholes.
Some valley fills will still be allowed under this guidance and the EPA even provided a set of “best practices” by which companies can do mountaintop removal in a manner consistent with it. Moreover, there are a number of recent cases where coal companies went ahead and constructed valley fills without even bothering to obtain a permit.
While the guidance takes effect immediately, it is a preliminary document released in response to calls from coal state legislators and coal companies for greater clarity on how the EPA was basing its decision whether to grant a valley fill permit for an Appalachian surface mine. The EPA plans to initiate an extended public comment period before the guidelines will be finalized.
An agency guidance document is different from a formal rule and can be easily overturned by a new administration. Even if this guidance proves to be effective in curtailing mountaintop removal, environmental and community advocates still need to ask what happens when a hypothetical President Palin enters the White House in January of 2013 or 2017.

There are any number of laws and regulations that affect surface mining, and so there is no single mechanism to ensure mountaintop removal is stopped permanently. But the first and most important step is for Congress to pass a strong law that prohibits the dumping of mine waste into streams.

In 2002, Representative Frank Pallone of New Jersey introduced just such a bill called the Clean Water Protection Act (H.R. 1310). Pallone, together with Republican Cristopher Shays, introduced this bipartisan bill in response to the Bush Administration’s catastrophic “fill rule,” which made it easier to permit mountaintop removal mining and for coal companies anywhere to dump waste into streams. Since then, people and organizations across Appalachia have supported Pallone’s bill by carrying a simple message to universities, church groups, and Rotary Clubs across America: they’re blowing up our mountains and there oughtta be a law!

Over the past eight years, the nationwide organizing efforts led by groups in Appalachia have generated a remarkable 170 co-sponsors of the Clean Water Protection Act—more than almost any other bill before Congress. Unfortunately, the bill continues to be held up in the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, with West Virginia Congressman Nick Rahall recently claiming credit in a West Virginia newspaper for bottling it up.

If Rahall’s contention is true, it’s a powerful testament to the level of influence he has accumulated, given that the bill has more cosponsors than any other of the 323 bills currently before the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. More importantly, Rahall does not actually have the power to prevent the bill from being heard except through his influence over Chairman James Oberstar of Minnesota, who is the only one with the actual power to decide whether the bill is brought up in his committee.

It’s particularly unfortunate that House Democratic leaders and committee chairs like Oberstar would give Rahall so much power over national policy, given how poorly his own constituents have fared under his leadership. After 33 years in office, Rahall’s district ranked 434th out of all 435 Congressional districts in Gallup’s recently-released 2009 well-being index rankings (see map below).

The only district that ranked lower was Hal Roger’s neighboring district in eastern Kentucky. Notably, Rogers’ is the only district that has suffered more destruction from mountaintop removal mining than Rahall’s.

A big question in the wake of the tragedy at Massey Energy’s Upper Big Branch mine is whether the obescience of coal state legislators toward the coal industry will change after the disaster. Traditionally, the pandering of Congressman Rahall and Senator Rockefeller toward Big Coal has been almost embarrassing to watch—kind of like witnessing an overly-exuberant public display of affection on a park bench. But when it comes to the safety of the guys in the hardhats, these gentlemen strike a very different tune.

Given that the same company, Massey Energy, is by far the largest operator of mountaintop removal mines, was assessed the largest penalty in the history of the Clean Water Act, and has a record of environmental violations to which their horrible safety record pales in comparison, these legislators have a unique opportunity to lead their constituents in a new direction. And Senator Byrd of West Virginia has paved the way.

One of the most under-reported elements of the EPA’s announcement was that Administrator Jackson specifically mentioned the EPA had worked with Senator Byrd to develop their new guidelines. She would not have said that without explicit approval from Senator Byrd. While Byrd has not explicitly called for an end to mountaintop removal or co-sponsored legislation to do that, his leadership in promoting a more thoughtful and reasonable view on climate and the future of coal in his state represents a sea change from the public statements of statewide elected officials over the past few decades. Rahall and Rockefeller would serve their constituents and their country far better if they followed Byrd’s lead.

Is passing a law in this polarized Congress realistic?

More important than the enormous number of cosponsors that legislation to stop mountaintop removal enjoys is the fact that the support is bipartisan. Immediately following the EPA’s announcement, Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), said in a press release:

The new EPA guidelines are useful in stopping some inappropriate coal mining in Appalachia but Congress still needs to pass the Cardin-Alexander legislation that would effectively end mountaintop removal mining.

Alexander, together with Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, introduced the Appalachia Restoration Act (S. 696) last year, a Senate companion to the Clean Water Protection Act designed to eliminate mountaintop removal (or at least permanently curtail it—we’ll see what the final language says after mark-up). That bill got a boost the same week of the EPA announcement when coal-state Senator Sherrod Brown of Ohio announced he would become the 11th co-sponsor of the bill.

Whether the Senate bill can survive the committee mark-up process in a form that Appalachian citizens groups can support remains to be seen, however. The Nashville Tennessean recently published an editorial that gave voice to the concerns many coalfield citizens have about forms of mining that may not be covered by the Senate bill, particularly cross-ridge mining. Cross-ridge is a type of mountaintop removal mining that requires little or no valley fill and is based on the assumption that a mountain can be put back more or less how it was after it’s been blown up—kind of like putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.

A “reclaimed” stream in KentuckyPhoto courtesy iLoveMountains.orgThe photo to the right illustrates one of many problems with the theory that mountains can be put back together without causing major ecological degradation. While the type of mining shown in the photo would not be classified by state agencies as mountaintop removal (only part of the ridgeline has been removed and there is no valley fill at the headwaters of this stream), the impact of this mining on water quality is indistinguishable from the impact shown in the previous photo below a valley fill.

Some insiders have also expressed concern that the EPA’s strict new guidance will take the wind out the sails of the campaign to pass a law, but from the perspective of Appalachian groups that have been working to ban mountaintop removal for decades, that concern is misplaced. The citizens of Appalachia have led this fight from the beginning, and have a much more vested interest in making these protections permanent than any group in Washington, D.C.

It may be that some big environmental groups that have only recently made mountaintop removal a priority will move on to other priorities once the Administrative decisions are played out—and make no mistake that the contributions of those groups over the past few years in pressuring the Obama Administration to take action were exceedingly welcome and timely. But it was not the Big Greens that made mountaintop removal a national issue or whose organizing in communities across America has generated such broad bipartisan support of the Clean Water Protection Act and Appalachia Restoration Act.

The people of Appalachia aren’t sitting around waiting for beltway insiders to tell them whether or how to pass a law, they’re just doing it. The legislative effort is led by the Alliance for Appalachia, an alliance of thirteen local and regional organizations that formed several years ago with the mission of ending mountaintop removal and bringing a prosperous new economy to the Appalachian coalfields that is based on sustainable industries.

The Alliance for Appalachia represents by far the greatest number of people impacted by mountaintop removal mining, and the alliance is composed of some organizations that have been fighting Appalachian strip mining for decades. The battle to end mountaintop removal will not be over until the Alliance for Appalachia says it is, and I’m confident that won’t happen until, at a minimum, President Obama signs a law banning the practice.

So what’s next?

There is a window of opportunity right now to pass a strong law that will rein in mountaintop removal permanently. Also, with coal demand down dramatically due to the recession, now is the time to begin replacing mountaintop removal coal with aggressive energy efficiency and renewable energy policies in states like North Carolina, Georgia, and Virginia that are most dependent on this source of coal.

From a local perspective, more delays, half-measures and uncertainty about the future of mountaintop removal will only lead to a myopic approach to rebuilding the Appalachian economy and bringing new jobs and new industries to the region.

And from a global perspective, at a time when America is finally getting serious about addressing climate change and moving toward a 21st century energy future built around renewable energy, isn’t it absurd that we’re still fighting to stop the wholesale destruction of the most biologically diverse forests and streams on the continent in order to mine climate-destroying coal? Can we really address climate change if we can’t even stop mountaintop removal?

For people around the country that want to see mountaintop removal end—and that should be anyone concerned about climate change, human rights, clean water, or endangered species—a great place to start is by telling your Senators and Representatives that the time to pass legislation to end mountaintop removal is now. There are plenty of tools on the web to make it easy.

Let’s keep up the momentum, pass a strong law, and relegate mountaintop removal to its rightful place as just another tragic episode in American history books.

 

Related Links:

Lisa Jackson and the “Headline People Don’t Want to Discuss”

14 buildings compete to be the Biggest Loser (of energy waste)

‘Green tea party’ closes out U.S. Earth Day celebrations

Luke Timmerman wrote:

Mirina, the microRNA drug developer at Accelerator, raised $3.9 million in its “expansion round” of financing that was reported earlier this week, according to a regulatory filing. The money ought to be enough to operate the company inside Accelerator for another 12-15 months as the company seeks to nail down more intellectual property around some advantages of its microRNA therapies, says Accelerator CEO Carl Weissman. Brian Atwood of Versant Ventures has joined the Mirina board, which also includes Weissman, Thong Le of WRF Capital, Steve Gillis of Arch Venture Partners, Chad Waite of OVP Venture Partners, Merl Hoekstra of Elitech Group, according to the filing.

by Julian Ku

This seems like a nice, uncontroversial way to buttress the ICC Prosecutor’s Office:

ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno-Ocampo today announced the appointment of Professor Jose Alvarez as his Office’s Special Advisor on International Law. “Professor Alvarez is one of the leading academics in international law,” said Prosecutor Moreno-Ocampo. “He has written extensively on the law-making powers of international organisations and on the ad hoc international war crimes tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.”

As Special Adviser to the Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), Professor Alvarez will focus on any public international law questions that arise in the course of the Prosecutor’s duties. This may include, for example, the relationship between the Security Council and the International Criminal Court.

Congrats, Jose!

The congressional race in Ohio’s second district is shaping up to be an odd one. And it’s not just because one Democratic candidate is a self-described “Reagan conservative” and another starred recently on “The Apprentice.”

With the Democratic primary just days away, state and local party leaders are ripping into David Krikorian, one of the hopefuls to challenge GOP Rep. Jean Schmidt in November, for disparaging remarks he’s made recently about his chief primary opponent, Surya Yalamanchili.

According to accounts given to local politicians, Krikorian has appeared at campaign events to ridicule Yalamanchili, an American of Indian descent, by dramatically pronouncing his name to emphasize its foreign nature.

“Now do you really think that a guy with a name like that has a chance of ever being elected?” Krikorian allegedly said to members of Veterans of Foreign Wars in Clermont County.

The comments —  which Krikorian denies – drew a quick response from local Democratic leaders, who shot off a letter to Krikorian Wednesday calling his behavior “deeply disturbing.”

“Your comments on Surya’s name are are best insensitive and worse appear racist,” wrote Timothy M. Burke and David Lane, the Democratic chairmen in Hamilton and Clermont counties, respectively. “It is deeply disturbing to us that you would use his name, which is obviously derived from his ethnic heritage, against him in a denigrating manner, especially considering how strongly you value and celebrate your own heritage.”

They added: “We will be voting for Surya next week, just as 18 months ago we were delighted to vote for someone else with an unusual name — Barack Obama.”

That isn’t all. Chris Redfern, chairman of Ohio’s Democratic Party, also caught wind of Krikorian’s alleged comments, and penned his own letter of disgust, calling Krikorian’s words “destructive.”

“We are a Party that proudly values diversity and inclusiveness,” Redfern wrote. “Your words fall short of these ideals.”

Yalamanchili, who recently starred on “The Apprentice,” hinted this week that he’s more concerned about what the comments say about Krikorian’s take on voter attitudes around Cincinnati than he is personally offended. “What’s most disappointing is that they seem to assume a certain level of racism on the part of the people of the 2nd district,” he told local media.

It’s not the only reason the Democrats are attacking Krikorian in the lead up to Tuesday’s primary. The Ohio businessman, while running for the same seat as an Independent in 2008, referred to himself as a “Reagan conservative,” a distinction that doesn’t exactly win points among the Democratic faithful. And during a primary debate last month, Krikorian attacked the notion that government workers should have the right to organize under unions, saying that “it puts the public at a disadvantage.”

Still, it’s the more recent charges of denigrating Yalamanchili’s heritage that are attracting most of the attention this week. And many say there’s good reason for that.

“They aren’t borderline racist remarks,” Cliff Schecter, an Ohio-based political consultant who is not involved in this race, told TWI Thursday. ”They are racist remarks.”

The episode has even attracted attention on Capitol Hill, with Schmidt herself condemning Krikorian’s remarks in an April 26 letter to the Democratic hopeful.

“Your remarks … were offensive to all that find even the hint of racism appalling,” Schmidt wrote. “You owe Mr. Yalamanchili and the Indian-American community an apology. Though I doubt one is forthcoming given your history.”

Krikorian, for his part, has denied the charges, and says he’ll be issuing a longer statement today.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
___________________________________________________________
For Immediate Release April 29, 2010

REMARKS BY THE PRESIDENT
AT FUNERAL SERVICE FOR DR. DOROTHY HEIGHT

Washington National Cathedral
Washington, D.C.

10:40 A.M. EDT

THE PRESIDENT: Please be seated. Let me begin by saying a word to Dr. Dorothy Height’s sister, Ms. Aldridge. To some, she was a mentor. To all, she was a friend. But to you, she was family, and my family offers yours our sympathy for your loss.

We are gathered here today to celebrate the life, and mourn the passing, of Dr. Dorothy Height. It is fitting that we do so here, in our National Cathedral of Saint Peter and Saint Paul. Here, in a place of great honor. Here, in the House of God. Surrounded by the love of family and of friends. The love in this sanctuary is a testament to a life lived righteously; a life that lifted other lives; a life that changed this country for the better over the course of nearly one century here on Earth.

Michelle and I didn’t know Dr. Height as well, or as long, as many of you. We were reminded during a previous moment in the service, when you have a nephew who’s 88 — (laughter) — you’ve lived a full life. (Applause.)

But we did come to know her in the early days of my campaign. And we came to love her, as so many loved her. We came to love her stories. And we loved her smile. And we loved those hats — (laughter) — that she wore like a crown — regal. In the White House, she was a regular. She came by not once, not twice — 21 times she stopped by the White House. (Laughter and applause.) Took part in our discussions around health care reform in her final months.

Last February, I was scheduled to see her and other civil rights leaders to discuss the pressing problems of unemployment — Reverend Sharpton, Ben Jealous of the NAACP, Marc Morial of the National Urban League. Then we discovered that Washington was about to be blanketed by the worst blizzard in record — two feet of snow.

So I suggested to one of my aides, we should call Dr. Height and say we’re happy to reschedule the meeting. Certainly if the others come, she should not feel obliged. True to form, Dr. Height insisted on coming, despite the blizzard, never mind that she was in a wheelchair. She was not about to let just a bunch of men — (laughter) — in this meeting. (Applause.) It was only when the car literally could not get to her driveway that she reluctantly decided to stay home. But she still sent a message — (laughter) — about what needed to be done.

And I tell that story partly because it brings a smile to my face, but also because it captures the quiet, dogged, dignified persistence that all of us who loved Dr. Height came to know so well — an attribute that we understand she learned early on.

Born in the capital of the old Confederacy, brought north by her parents as part of that great migration, Dr. Height was raised in another age, in a different America, beyond the experience of many. It’s hard to imagine, I think, life in the first decades of that last century when the elderly woman that we knew was only a girl. Jim Crow ruled the South. The Klan was on the rise — a powerful political force. Lynching was all too often the penalty for the offense of black skin. Slaves had been freed within living memory, but too often, their children, their grandchildren remained captive, because they were denied justice and denied equality, denied opportunity, denied a chance to pursue their dreams.

The progress that followed — progress that so many of you helped to achieve, progress that ultimately made it possible for Michelle and me to be here as President and First Lady — that progress came slowly. (Applause.)

Progress came from the collective effort of multiple generations of Americans. From preachers and lawyers, and thinkers and doers, men and women like Dr. Height, who took it upon themselves — often at great risk — to change this country for the better. From men like W.E.B Du Bois and A. Philip Randolph; women like Mary McLeod Bethune and Betty Friedan — they’re Americans whose names we know. They are leaders whose legacies we teach. They are giants who fill our history books. Well, Dr. Dorothy Height deserves a place in this pantheon. She, too, deserves a place in our history books. (Applause.) She, too, deserves a place of honor in America’s memory.

Look at her body of work. Desegregating the YWCA. Laying the groundwork for integration on Wednesdays in Mississippi. Lending pigs to poor farmers as a sustainable source of income. Strategizing with civil rights leaders, holding her own, the only woman in the room, Queen Esther to this Moses Generation — even as she led the National Council of Negro Women with vision and energy — (applause) — with vision and energy, vision and class.

But we remember her not solely for all she did during the civil rights movement. We remember her for all she did over a lifetime, behind the scenes, to broaden the movement’s reach. To shine a light on stable families and tight-knit communities. To make us see the drive for civil rights and women’s rights not as a separate struggle, but as part of a larger movement to secure the rights of all humanity, regardless of gender, regardless of race, regardless of ethnicity.

It’s an unambiguous record of righteous work, worthy of remembrance, worthy of recognition. And yet, one of the ironies is, is that year after year, decade in, decade out, Dr. Height went about her work quietly, without fanfare, without self-promotion. She never cared about who got the credit. She didn’t need to see her picture in the papers. She understood that the movement gathered strength from the bottom up, those unheralded men and women who don’t always make it into the history books but who steadily insisted on their dignity, on their manhood and womanhood. (Applause.) She wasn’t interested in credit. What she cared about was the cause. The cause of justice. The cause of equality. The cause of opportunity. Freedom’s cause.

And that willingness to subsume herself, that humility and that grace, is why we honor Dr. Dorothy Height. As it is written in the Gospel of Matthew: “For whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” I don’t think the author of the Gospel would mind me rephrasing: “whoever humbles herself will be exalted.” (Applause.)

One of my favorite moments with Dr. Height — this was just a few months ago — we had decided to put up the Emancipation Proclamation in the Oval Office, and we invited some elders to share reflections of the movement. And she came and it was a inter-generational event, so we had young children there, as well as elders, and the elders were asked to share stories. And she talked about attending a dinner in the 1940s at the home of Dr. Benjamin Mays, then president of Morehouse College. And seated at the table that evening was a 15-year-old student, “a gifted child,” as she described him, filled with a sense of purpose, who was trying to decide whether to enter medicine, or law, or the ministry.

And many years later, after that gifted child had become a gifted preacher — I’m sure he had been told to be on his best behavior — after he led a bus boycott in Montgomery, and inspired a nation with his dreams, he delivered a sermon on what he called “the drum major instinct” — a sermon that said we all have the desire to be first, we all want to be at the front of the line.

The great test of a life, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said, is to harness that instinct; to redirect it towards advancing the greater good; toward changing a community and a country for the better; toward doing the Lord’s work.

I sometimes think Dr. King must have had Dorothy Height in mind when he gave that speech. For Dorothy Height met the test. Dorothy Height embodied that instinct. Dorothy Height was a drum major for justice. A drum major for equality. A drum major for freedom. A drum major for service. And the lesson she would want us to leave with today — a lesson she lived out each and every day — is that we can all be first in service. We can all be drum majors for a righteous cause. So let us live out that lesson. Let us honor her life by changing this country for the better as long as we are blessed to live. May God bless Dr. Dorothy Height and the union that she made more perfect. (Applause.)

END 10:54 A.M. EDT

GUANTANAMO BAY — Welcome to the first courtroom logjam of what officials here call military commissions 4.2.

Omar Khadr’s pre-trial hearing this morning experienced an unexplained hour-long delay. Court officers filtered in at 10 a.m., without a certain important individual: Omar Khadr.

Prosecution promptly called a Marine Corps captain, Laura Bruzzese, to testify that she informed Khadr at 5:15 a.m. that there was a hearing scheduled for this morning. Khadr had a blanket over his head and complained of pain in his left eye, which has been sightless after an injury sustained during his 2002 capture in Afghanistan. She had him escorted to the infirmary, where he received an eyedrop for the pain, and in Camp Delta security officers attempted to load Khadr into a van to transport him to court. Part of that transfer involved putting what Bruzzese called “Eyes and Ears” on Khadr: blackout ski goggles and earmuffs to block out his senses while in transit.

Only Khadr refused. When Bruzzese asked him why he wouldn’t wear the Eyes and Ears — standard operating procedure for transiting a detainee, she testified — Khadr responded, “The only purpose is to humiliate me.” Under cross-examination, she testified that the van used for transport has no windows. Khadr wouldn’t, in other words, be able to understand where he was going even without the Eyes and Ears.

Khadr’s aggressive defense lawyer, Barry Coburn, contended that Khadr was not voluntarily absent from the hearing. “My understanding is that this has never been done before,” Coburn told Col. Patrick Parrish, the military judge, referring to the placement of the Eyes and Ears on a detainee in the van.

Parrish didn’t appear sympathetic. “This court is not going to second-guess the security requirements” placed by military officials here for detainee transfer, he said. Parrish denied Coburn’s requests to call witnesses to testify as to the involuntary nature of Khadr’s refusal to attend.

But then Parrish returned from a brief recess arising from an unrelated issue with new facts. Court reporters verified that the prior judge in Khadr’s case, Col. Peter Brownback, did not inform Khadr during his 2007 arraignment that a defendant has the right to attend every hearing in his case and that the proceedings will not stop if he declines to attend.

“I don’t feel comfortable proceeding until it is clear on the record that he has been so advised,” Parrish said, preparing to bang his gavel down for a recess. “The Manual says it is so fundamental.”

Before he did, Parrish urged defense counsel to visit Khadr at Camp Delta and “advise him of his fundamental rights.” If Khadr affirms to his lawyers that he understands and still doesn’t want to attend, Parrish said he’d accept that outcome. Alternatively, Parrish said he would “have him forcibly brought” to court to inform Khadr of his rights. (One of the most knowledgeable reporters here, Carol Rosenberg of the Miami Herald, said that judges don’t necessarily have the authority to order a detainee movement, as it’s been challenged in prior cases.)

So thanks to an obscure procedural snafu from 2007, Coburn and his partner, Kobie Flowers, are racing to Camp Echo, where detainees meet with their lawyers, to talk to Khadr. Neither would tell me in the confusion of the courtroom which option they’d choose. But they brought along Steve Xenakis, a mental health expert, to evaluate Khadr — most likely so that if Khadr declines to attend, they could proffer an expert statement about how voluntary he considers his absence.

“How quick can we get on the road, guys?” was the last thing I heard Coburn say before his team raced out the door.

The court reconvenes at 1 p.m. One potential problem: Camp Echo is outside the wire of Camp 4, the facility for “compliance” detainees, where Khadr resides. Conceivably, security officers could force Khadr to put on the Eyes and Ears, even to talk to his lawyers at Echo.

The internet outrage that met Sony’s removal of the Other OS feature from the PS3 console isn’t the only problem on the company’s doorstep. Now they also have a class action lawsuit to deal with.

Like Paul Krugman, I was swayed–if not convinced–by Barry Eichengreen’s argument that leaving the euro would trigger catastrophic bank runs in any country that did so, and was therefore unlikely.  Perhaps, I thought, my earlier euroskepticism had been overdone.

But today Krugman makes a very good point:  the countries now at risk of leaving the euro are going ahead and having the financial crisis anyway (to varying degrees).  Which may mean all bets are off.  Once Greece has to place “emergency” restrictions on bank withdrawals in order to halt runs, bolting the currency union starts to seem much more thinkable.  And allegedly, the runs have already started.  In fact, the euro is making them worse, because you can move your money to another country’s banks without taking any currency risk (to the downside, anyway.  Depositors who are sensible enough to stash their cash in Germany will get a nice boost if Greece devalues).

I now think it’s much more likely than not that Greece will ultimately leave the euro–if not this year, then soon.  Best case scenario is that they get a big IMF/euroland bailout, default on their debt and secure a reasonable restructuring from creditors–at which point they’re still stuck with an excessively tight monetary policy and an economy that isn’t all that productive, except they also can’t borrow money at attractive euro-style rates. 

Don’t get me wrong.  I think it’s clear that on or off the euro, Greece is going to have to get its fiscal house in order and make substantial cuts to government spending.  But it will be a lot easier with a looser monetary policy and a cheaper currency that makes tourism and agricultural exports more competitive.  Going off the euro has huge, dramatic costs.  But they probably involve fewer rioting civil servants.

(Nav Image Credit: U-g-g-B-o-y-(-Photograp h-World-Sense-)/flickr)

Economist and President of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Janet Yellen, whom President Obama nominated to become vice chairperson of the Federal Reserve board this morning, has responded to today’s events on her bank’s website:

I’m honored that President Obama has asked me to serve in that capacity. If confirmed by the Senate, I am looking forward to working even more closely with Chairman Bernanke and the other governors, and continuing to collaborate with my colleagues throughout the Federal Reserve System to conduct policies that foster economic prosperity and ensure a stable financial system.

I am strongly committed to pursuing the dual goals that Congress has assigned us: maximum employment and price stability and, if confirmed, I will work to ensure that policy promotes job creation and keeps inflation in check.

Not to read into the statement too much, but it is interesting that Yellen names the mandate of “maximum employment” first and that she mentions jobs twice.

The Chrysler Sebring will reportedly get a new name later this year: Nassau.

The midsize sedan is due for a freshening, including an updated interior, along with its Dodge sibling, the Avenger. The Detroit Free Press, citing anonymous sources, says the new name will be Nassau.

Chrysler is not commenting on the possible name change.

“[We] definitely don’t have anything to announce about the possible name change later this year,” spokesman Rick Deneau said.

The Nassau moniker should ring a bell with car fans. It was the name of Hemi-powered, four-passenger luxury concept shown at the 2007 Detroit auto show. With striking looks and a prominent grille, the concept displayed a dash of panache–potentially for a future Chrysler. The concept rode on a 120-inch wheelbase and was meant to look more visually compact than a comparable Chrysler 300C, summoning the style of a shooting brake.

Still, the Sebring refresh is more of an update, so look for the name change to be the extent of the Nassau genetics that make it onto the new sedan. The Nassau name was also used famously by Chrysler in the 1950s.

Look for the new sedan to get Chrysler’s Pentastar V6 and with a Fiat-developed dual-clutch transmission–dramatic upgrades to the powertrain.

Automotive News also reported in March that the Sebring name will be dropped because the updates are so extensive, according to CEO Sergio Marchionne.

Chrysler

The Chrysler Sebring is due for updates to the engine, transmission and interior this year. Look for a new name: Nassau.

The Sebring and the Avenger are sorely in need of updates to increase their competitiveness in a midsize segment loaded with viable entries. Toyota and Honda have long ruled the sales charts, but the Chevrolet Malibu and the Ford Fusion are showing strength in the market as well, as American buyers again consider domestic brands.

Chrysler’s midsize products have languished as the company endured ownership changes and bankruptcy. Marchionne has made it a priority to strengthen the company’s products in that area with quick changes rather than waiting for full redesigns which could take years.

Last week, Fiat announced that the Sebring will be built in Turin, Italy, along with the Alfa Romeo Giulia, which is also a midsize sedan.

For more

Source: Car news, reviews and auto show stories

Date of the explosion and fire onboard Transocean’s Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico: 4/20/2010

Distance of the rig, which was being used by BP, from the Louisiana coast when the disaster occurred: 41 miles

Size of the crew at the time of the blast: 126

Number of crew members who remain missing: 11

Date on which a lawsuit was filed by a missing worker’s wife claiming negligence on the part of Transocean, BP and Halliburton, which was cementing the well when the explosion occurred: 4/27/2010

Number of deaths associated with offshore drilling operations in the Gulf of Mexico since 2001: 69

Number of injuries: 1,349

Number of reports issued by the U.S. Minerals Management Service documenting non-compliant offshore drilling operations: 150

Time period during which MMS said it saw “no discernible improvement by industry” in terms of safety: 7 years

Frequency with which MMS wants operators to have their safety programs audited: every 3 years

Number of letters oil companies have sent protesting the proposed regulations, citing the expense: over 100

Profits earned by BP in 2009: $14 billion

Number of oil spills of over 2,100 gallons that have occurred in the Gulf over the past decade: 172

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s current estimate of the amount of oil being leaked from the Gulf disaster site: 5,000 barrels a day

Factor by which that surpasses the previous estimate: 5 times

Square miles the slick is now covering: more than 2,200

Date on which cleanup crews conducted a “controlled burn” to help reduce risks from the oil slick: 4/28

Date on which official forecasts say the oil slick may begin impacting the Louisiana shoreline: 4/30

Number of Louisiana fishermen who packed a meeting this morning to help pinpoint locations for oil containment rings: nearly 200

Rank of the threatened area among those with the largest total seafood landings in the lower 48 states: 1

Percent of the nation’s wild shrimp crop the area produces: 50

Number of species put in harm’s way by the spill: more than 400

Current estimated cost of the disaster: at least $1 billion

(Click on figure to go to the original source.)

(Satellite radar image of the Gulf oil slick, the black blob in the lower right corner, is from the SkyTruth blog; it was taken April 26 by the European Space Agency.)

Not that there’s anyone doubting that Facebook is the biggest thing online right now, but here’s yet another sign. The number one searched query on all major search engines is now ‘facebook.’ The number three search term: ‘facebook login’ or ‘facebook.com.’ Clearly, Facebook users a… (read more)

Thanks to John Schwada of Fox News Channel 11, we get explanations — of a sort — from Council members Bernard Parks and Jan Perry — on how they missed keeping the DWP rate hike from becoming permanent.

I don’t watch much television, and therefore have missed most of the attack ads on financial regulatory reform. But, with Sen. Chris Dodd’s (D-Conn.) bill finally on the Senate floor for formal debate — and the open amendment process starting today — the back-and-forth will only heat up. When Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) tweeted “Let’s stop ‘too big to fail’” with a link to an ad this morning, I thought I would check it out.

Compelling. But let’s fact check, line by line.

When our economy crashed, small investors were left behind. Congress bailed out the Wall Street banks that caused the collapse with your money.

So far, so good. When the economy crashed, the government did prop up the Wall Street banks with cash infusions and bailouts via Congress and the Federal Reserve. By “small investors,” I presume the ad means “small businesses,” which certainly have not benefited much from Washington’s efforts. Either way, yes, the little guy was on the hook for the big fishes’ losses.

Now Congress is considering so-called “financial reform” that gives the government unlimited executive bailout authority – unlimited bailouts for big banks, paid for by you and me.

I’m not sure what “unlimited executive bailout authority” means — though it is a nice, menacing turn of phrase. Dodd’s bill does not at all provide the executive branch with the authority to bail out firms willy-nilly; the whole point of the bill is to prevent the government from having to rescue the financial sector again by forcibly shutting down and breaking up dangerous firms, and creating a slew of provisions to stop them from becoming dangerous in the first place.

The Republican counterproposal does precisely the same thing — but actually puts taxpayers on the hook first. The Dodd bill forces banks to create a $50 billion fund for the government to use in the process of “resolving” — that is, liquidating — a failing or dangerous firm. The Republican proposal makes the government liquidate the firm first and then recoup any losses.

Who supports this phony reform? The big banks. The CEO of Goldman Sachs, a bank under investigation, says, quote, “The biggest beneficiary of reform is Wall Street itself.” And after receiving billions in taxpayer bailouts, Citigroup’s CEO says, quote, “You can count on Citigroup to support these efforts.”

No, financial firms do not support the reform bill. Provisions such as the ban on proprietary trading and regulation of derivatives will make their businesses less lucrative. Thus, they have spent millions of dollars lobbying against the bill.

And of course Wall Street does not announce its opposition to reform. It would hardly be politic to argue, “We would like to remain unregulated and capable of taking risks that might destroy the world economy but will certainly enrich us,” in Congressional testimony.

When big banks line up to support phony reform, it’s like, well, you know…

Accompanying this text is footage of oinking pigs. I guess that this implies pork, or greed, or something. I really have no idea.

And there’s the ad, as brought to you by Consumers for Competitive Choice, an astroturf lobbying firm. For more on them, see TPM’s excellent reporting here.

Lynne Kiesling

I’ve seen two interesting things today in the ongoing debate between Apple and Adobe over Apple’s refusal to allow developers for the iPod Touch, iPhone, and iPad to develop Flash-based applications. First is an open letter from Steve Jobs with an extensive discussion of Apple’s long relationship with Adobe (including an ownership share at one point). His remarks emphasize the primary reasons that I have heard offered for Apple’s decision: Flash is a proprietary application that would require Apple and developers to rely on its third-party plugins, which can be very problematic in development; Flash’s security problems (the ability to exploit those plugins) and the closed/open issue have led to development of a more flexible, updated HTML5 video open standard; and empirically, Flash is a contributing factor in a majority of operating system crashes.

Jobs’ comments on open architecture particularly caught my attention:

Adobe’s Flash products are 100% proprietary. They are only available from Adobe, and Adobe has sole authority as to their future enhancement, pricing, etc. While Adobe’s Flash products are widely available, this does not mean they are open, since they are controlled entirely by Adobe and available only from Adobe. By almost any definition, Flash is a closed system.

Apple has many proprietary products too. Though the operating system for the iPhone, iPod and iPad is proprietary, we strongly believe that all standards pertaining to the web should be open. Rather than use Flash, Apple has adopted HTML5, CSS and JavaScript – all open standards. Apple’s mobile devices all ship with high performance, low power implementations of these open standards. HTML5, the new web standard that has been adopted by Apple, Google and many others, lets web developers create advanced graphics, typography, animations and transitions without relying on third party browser plug-ins (like Flash). HTML5 is completely open and controlled by a standards committee, of which Apple is a member.

Makes sense to me, particularly in light of all of the smart grid interoperability standard work I did and how I think such interoperability at shared interfaces is crucial to the development of competitive retail markets, in electricity service as well as in other markets. However, when Steve Jobs talks about open architecture it doesn’t entirely ring true to me, and an article from Daniel Lyons in Newsweek discusses why I sense that cognitive dissonance:

Now along comes Apple with a walled garden. Not only does it produce the iPad’s processor, its operating system, and the device itself, but Apple sells its content, via iTunes, and keeps 30 percent of the money. It also operates the App Store, the only place selling applications to run on the iPad, and it keeps a 30 percent slice there, too. This summer it will start selling ads that run inside the apps and will keep a 40 percent slice of that revenue. …

Part of me is glad Apple is doing this, because someone needs to buck the “everything is free” trend and see what happens. But I think the company is taking things to an extreme, exerting a degree of control that may ultimately undermine its own success. If you own an iPad or an iPhone, you’re aware (and no doubt frustrated) that it won’t run videos created in Adobe’s Flash software, which accounts for half or more of all the videos on the Web. An Apple spokesman says Flash is “closed and proprietary” and that Apple supports other development tools that are “open and standard.” But banning Flash also pushes customers to buy movies and TV shows from iTunes rather than watch them on a free Web site. It pushes developers to write apps that get distributed through Apple’s App Store, rather than through a Web browser.

Lyons then goes on to recall how Apple lost market share to Microsoft in the 1980s by following a very similar strategy. Will repeating this strategy in this dramatically different market and context lead to Apple walling itself off and limiting its market potential?

I am more interested in, and worried about, Apple’s walled garden creating application-based walls within the Internet, while at the same time Jobs is talking about open standards in all web interfaces. In fact, this is one big reason why I don’t own an iPhone and won’t own an iPhone (the other is that I will never give AT&T my voluntary business), despite my Mac computer use and my iPod ownership.

When Sarah Palin bloviates, the media goes mad. When a South Korean military vessel blows up, perhaps from a North Korean missile, things get very quiet.

This is a good thing. Evidently the prospect of WW III does concentrate minds. It’s a sign that our legislators aren’t as stupid as they look.

A recent BBC summary outlines the current public analysis…

BBC News – Seoul’s dilemma over sunken warship

The 26 March sinking of the Cheonan, with 40 lives lost and six men still missing, is certainly a South Korean military disaster…

… The shattered wreck of the 1,200-tonne gunboat has now been winched to the surface, in two pieces, and is being examined at a naval dockyard.

The investigation team includes American, Australian, Swedish and British experts, in part, to ensure that its conclusions are seen as free from South Korean political influence.

… suspicion is mounting, with South Korean Defence Minister Kim Tae-young concluding that a torpedo attack is among the "most likely" causes.

… "If it’s a torpedo firing then that’s about as big a thing as you can do short of rolling across the border," he told me. "Unless you have a desire to start World War III then you don’t do it…

… If it is shown to be a torpedo that hit the Cheonan, then perhaps it can be seen as retaliation for the fact that North Korea is reported to have come off worse in the most recent naval skirmish.

Or maybe it was an attempt to rally the military around the leadership of the ailing Kim Jong-il, reportedly trying to manage a difficult transition of power to his youngest son.

But others have suggested that it might be the military acting alone, a sign of a dangerous shift in the balance of power inside North Korea, and a far more worrying prospect.

So the options are …

• North Korea’s leadership is insane
• North Korea’s military is insane
• It’s a freak accident with an impossibly ancient mine

The last is unlikely, the first two are discouraging. I wonder, just based on watching humans for a while, if there isn’t a fourth explanation.

An accident. A blunder. A screw-up.

Remember when the US shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing 290 civilians? No, that wasn’t US military policy. It was a screw-up.

We now know how crummy the Soviet military infrastructure was before the collapse of the USSR. It’s likely that North Korea’s is in much worse shape. It’s likely their submariners are desperate and ill-trained. it’s a setup for an accident, or for a crazed officer to do something very stupid.

Would the submarine officers confess to having screwed up? In North Korea that would probably be a death sentence – or worse.

My money is on blunder.

Now it’s all about China, which has huge investments in North Korea. It’s all about whether China will decide that North Korea has to end, and, if so, on what terms and timeline.