Blog

Zappos-owned e-commerce site 6pm.com had a little pricing problem this weekend: A glitch in its system marked down every product in the store to $49.95. By the time the problem was fixed, the store had lost $1.6 million. So, did Zappos cancel the orders or charge the customers the “correct” price for their goods. Nope. The company ate the loss, saying it was “the right thing to do for our customers.”

Zappos CEO Tony Hsieh (pictured) explained the situation on the company blog:

We have a pricing engine that runs and sets prices according to the rules it is given by business owners. Unfortunately, the way to input new rules into the current version of our pricing engine requires near-programmer skills to manipulate, and a few symbols were missed in the coding of a new rule, which resulted in items that were sold exclusively on 6pm.com to have a maximum price of $49.95. (Items that are sold on both 6pm.com and Zappos.com were not affected.)

We already had planned on improving our internal pricing engine so that it will have a much easier-to-use interface for our business owners. We are also planning on adding additional checks and balances to hopefully prevent this type of thing from happening again.

To those of you asking if anybody was fired, the answer is no, nobody was fired – this was a learning experience for all of us. Even though our terms and conditions state that we do not need to fulfill orders that are placed due to pricing mistakes, and even though this mistake cost us over $1.6 million, we felt that the right thing to do for our customers was to eat the loss and fulfill all the orders that had been placed before we discovered the problem.

Interestingly, Zappos’ policies are not shared by its parent company, Amazon.com. In March, for example, an Amazon pricing glitch brought the prices of some books down from $125 to as little as $15. The company fixed the bug, canceled any orders that hadn’t been fulfilled. Customers got $25 gift cards instead of their books; not a bad deal, but definitely a different perspective on the idea of “the right thing to do” for customers.

6pm.com Pricing Mistake [Zappos.com company blog]

Previously: Amazon Offers $25 Gift Card To Disappointed Comics Fans After Epic Price Glitch
Thanks to everyone who sent this in!

Digital photography is clear, convenient and remarkably predictable. But film, particularly loaded into a pinhole camera, can be rough, murky and inherently retrospective. The 20 results of this Shooting Challenge are an excellent homage to the quirks of the medium. More »

Writing about the California Senate race on his blog, RedState.com, conservative political commentator and CNN contributor Erick Erickson says that allies of Republican Carly Fiorina try to “Dick Blumenthal” GOP opponent Chuck DeVore.

The World Science Festival is running a blog in conjunction with this year’s festivities. Today I’ve written a post about one of the sessions, where scientists will talk about how we can understand our own minds by studying animal minds. Check it out here or here.

ExxonMobil anxiously grasps its gigantic but unsustainable gold mines, pumps cash (much of it from your wallet to places far away), pours GHGs into the atmosphere, pushes its publicity machine, and doesn’t seem to comprehend the relationships between a healthy climate and the lives of our grandchildren.  They try to confuse you in the process.  Their actions delay the creation of millions of jobs and our ability to author a healthier future.  And that’s putting it politely.

ExxonMobil will be holding its Annual Meeting of Shareholders this week, on May 26 in Dallas.  If you get your news from the status quo media, you might not have a full picture of the company (see NYT suckered by ExxonMobil in puff piece titled “Green is for Sissies”).

Guest columnist, frequent commenter, and former Chevron employee, Jeff Huggins paints a poignant portrait of the petro-giant.

Huggins has worked for companies as diverse as Chevron, Disney, and McKinsey & Co. — he even had a job offer from Exxon at one point. Now he provides philosophical and strategic consulting to progressive companies, good causes, and individuals. His website is www.thewindingriver.org.  For details of Exxon’s role in funding the disinformation campaign on climate science, see “Another ExxonMobil deceit: They are still funding climate science deniers despite public pledge.”  See also this excellent commentary by award-winning journalist, Eric Pooley, “Exxon Works Up New Recipe for Frying the Planet.“

In concluding his speech to the Royal Institute for International Affairs, titled “Meeting Growing Energy Demand and Addressing Climate Risks” (June 21, 2007), ExxonMobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson quoted Bertrand Russell and expressed these sentiments:

“The British philosopher and social activist Bertrand Russell once said, ‘We must care about the world of our children and grandchildren, a world we may never see.’

“Indeed, we cannot yet see our grandchildren’s world, its economy or its climate. But we must care about it. We must care enough to treat the risks of global poverty and global warming seriously. We must care enough to take actions to address them.”

Barely a year later, on July 19, 2008, The New York Times ran a short interview of Chairman Tillerson.  In response to the questions, “Where do you see your company in 20 years?  Will oil and gas still be your dominant business?”, he answered:

“Yes.  In 2030, oil and gas will represent 60 percent of the world’s energy needs.  My view is I am going to keep doing what we do better than anyone else in the world—finding, developing and delivering oil and gas to the world.”

(Petrarch wrote, “Anyone who wants a certain result, but is quite happy with the absence of what would bring it about, has obviously no understanding of either causes or effects.”  Einstein observed, “The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them.”  But never mind them.)

I can’t say, definitively, whether these are the same Rex Tillersons, whether he misunderstood what Bertrand Russell meant, or whether Version 2008 forgot his 2007 speech or neglected to read the IPCC reports and the urgent statements from the world’s leading scientific organizations.  Perhaps the news media should press him on the matter?

Given that I’m not a member of the media, however—and thus I have no fear that ExxonMobil will stop running ads on my front page or network—I thought I should offer a timely portrait of ExxonMobil to The American Public, as the big event nears.

The “big event”?  ExxonMobil will be holding its Annual Meeting of Shareholders this week, on May 26 in Dallas.

Before I begin, I should say that the following is not meant to be financial investment advice and should not be taken as such.  Harvard lawyers—some of them who are not already in Washington—advised me to say so.  And, if any of this causes dizziness, or any unwanted symptoms that last more than 24 hours, you may want to see your doctor.  Importantly, you should check any of the following factors and figures before using them to form any opinions of consequence.  Yet, from a human and ethical standpoint, if you want to have your investments in companies that act responsibly with respect to humankind, other species, the planet, and your grandchildren, my suggestion would be to promptly dump Exxon.  That said, you be the judge.

Let’s start with the big picture—and indeed it’s Big:

According to ExxonMobil’s 2009 Summary Annual Report, they had a “Total net production of liquids and natural gas available for sale of 3.9 million oil-equivalent barrels per day”.

Based on that figure, and according to a rough but easy estimate, that suggests that ExxonMobil products, when used, generate over One Trillion Pounds of CO2 each year.  That’s from ExxonMobil products alone.  In a single year.  And it doesn’t even include another huge number, which is the amount of GHGs generated in ExxonMobil’s internal operations.

What’s the precise number?  I don’t know.  I’ve asked ExxonMobil, and they’ve corresponded with me, but they won’t provide it.  Maybe The New York Times will think to ask them.

For now, suffice it to say that ExxonMobil products and operations generate well over One Trillion Pounds of CO2 per year and perhaps even more than Two Trillion Pounds per year (in CO2-equivalent terms) of total GHGs.  In any case, the amount generated weighs considerably more than the weight of the entire human species living on Earth today—in other words, more than all 6.8 billion of us weigh, in total.

Yes, that’s a lot!  Certainly enough to warrant a very, very heavy conscience!

That said, they do make money:  ExxonMobil is the most profitable company in the U.S. and, possibly, in the galaxy.  According to the recent Fortune 500 listing, ExxonMobil’s profits in 2009 were greater than the combined profits of the top fifteen companies in the motor vehicles and parts industry (Ford, GM, etc.), the top three apparel companies (Nike, etc.), the two major advertising conglomerates, the seven major entertainment companies (Disney, News Corp., Time Warner, etc.), and the five major networking and communications equipment companies (Cisco, Motorola, etc.) combined.

You read right:  ExxonMobil’s earnings were greater than the net earnings of all of the leading companies in those industries combined!

And that was in a down year for ExxonMobil.  Their net income in 2009 was $19.3 Billion.  In 2008, it was $45.2 Billion.

(To avoid misinterpretation before we proceed, I’m not suggesting that healthy profits are unhealthy or ungood.  Nor will I be suggesting, below, that a few other aspects of ExxonMobil’s modus operandi are problematic in and of themselves.  Instead, it’s the combined picture and its outcomes that cause concerns.)

Yep, they’re the most profitable U.S. company.  A huge American company—headquartered in Texas (land of the Cowboys) and incorporated in New Jersey (land of the Boss).  But wait, where is the real action, according to the numbers?

Well, in 2009, only 20% of their capital and exploration expenditures were spent in the U.S.  Eighty percent was spent in other countries.  Over three quarters (76%) of their total average capital employed is employed outside of the U.S., aside from corporate-level financing stuff.

Here are a few other figures:

Only about 16% of their net production of crude oil and natural gas liquids occurred in the U.S.

Only about 14% of their “net natural gas production available for sale” occurred in the U.S.

Only a third (33%) of their refinery throughput occurred in U.S. refineries.  (This actually surprised me:  I had thought that at least their refining capacity was mostly in the U.S.)

About 39% of their petroleum product sales and chemical prime product sales occurred in the U.S.

And here’s an interesting one:  Only one sixth (roughly 16.6%) of their earnings after income taxes were earned in the U.S.  In other words, over eighty percent of ExxonMobil’s earnings after taxes were attributable to operations outside the U.S.—presumably anyhow.  Only their tax accountant knows for sure.

Apparently, home for Exxon is not exactly Kansas!

Indeed, in their 2009 report, they list as a key highlight the “start-up of a world-scale, fully integrated refining and petrochemical complex in Fujian Province, China.”

And here I was, thinking that we should be trying to reduce our use of fossil fuels and encouraging China to do the same.  Silly me!

Let’s now consider ExxonMobil’s apparent attitude toward employment.  Set aside what those API ads would like you to believe—that the oil companies genuinely care about employment to the degree that they’d put their money where their mouth is—and let the numbers tell the story:

In 2009, ExxonMobil’s revenues were $301.5 Billion, their net income was $19.3 Billion, and they employed roughly 80,700 people worldwide.  Eight years earlier, in 2001, revenues were about $210 Billion, income was roughly $15 Billion, and they employed about 98,000 people.  In other words, in 2009 they employed roughly seventeen thousand fewer people than in 2001.  During most of the recent decade, ExxonMobil has cut employment as its revenues and profits have soared, until the downturn of prices in 2009 from levels in 2008.  (In 2008, revenues were a whopping $459.6 Billion, net income was $45.2 Billion, and they employed 79,900 people.)

And how do ExxonMobil’s employment figures compare to the big picture?  Is ExxonMobil a major employer—a pro-employment employer—a champion for the American worker?

Well, not really.  As mentioned, ExxonMobil employs about 80,700 people, worldwide.  That compares to over 300,000 public school teachers employed by California alone, UPS’s 408,000 employees, General Electric’s 304,000 employees, HP’s 304,000 employees, GM’s 217,000 employees, Safeway’s 186,000 employees, Wal-Mart’s 2.1 Million employees, and over 6 Million teachers in the U.S.

The oil industry is a small employer, relatively speaking.  (General Electric alone employs more people than ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, Marathon, Sunoco, Hess, and Murphy combined, with room to spare.)  Exceptions to this point include the Chinese and Russian oil and gas industries, which are huge employers there—all the more reason why we’ll need to take steps to end our own addiction to oil if we ever expect to have any credibility whatsoever in working globally to reduce GHG emissions.

Also, it’s unclear how many of ExxonMobil’s 80,700 employees are in the U.S.  Remember, less than one quarter of ExxonMobil’s capital is employed within the U.S., and U.S. operations accounted for only one sixth of their earnings after taxes.

According to CBS News, General Motors’ employment in the U.S peaked in the late 1970s at over 600,000 employees—and about 850,000 worldwide.  GM has lost far more employees during the last three decades than the total number of employees, worldwide, of ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Valero, and Marathon combined.

What about R&D?  Again, stats speak: For every dollar of revenue, ExxonMobil spent substantially less than one penny on R&D.  The figure in 2009 was 0.35 cents—about a third of a penny—spent on R&D, per dollar of sales.

And that’s total R&D, including all the conventional R&D that oil companies pursue regarding conventional hydrocarbon-based fuels, production and refining processes, additives, chemicals, and so forth.  In other words, only a fraction of that fraction of one little penny is spent researching renewable sources of energy.

So, imagine paying ExxonMobil $3 for a gallon of gas.  Of that $3, they spend about one penny on total R&D.  Only a fraction of that little penny is spent researching renewables.  Meanwhile, when you burn that gallon in your car, it generates about 20 pounds of CO2.  (For example, burning just seven gallons of gasoline generates an amount of CO2 that weighs as much as a 140-pound person.)  And where does the vast majority of your $3 go?  Not into R&D, to be sure.  Instead, most of it goes to places and people outside the U.S., where most of ExxonMobil’s capital is employed, most of their expenditures are made, and most of their oil and gas resources happen to be.

Here’s another way to assess ExxonMobil’s commitment to R&D, all things considered:  ExxonMobil distributed more money to its shareholders in the recent five-year period alone—a total of over $150 Billion—than it would spend on R&D, at the current rate, in 142 years.  That’s only slightly less than the time since the Civil War.

Does that sound like a company that’s genuinely “taking on the world’s toughest energy challenges” and acting responsibly to help address climate change?

In their 2009 Summary Annual Report, ExxonMobil tells us, “Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions represent close to 60 percent of global GHG emissions attributed to human activities, and are expected to increase about 25 percent from 2005 to 2030.”  Then, instead of telling us what we and they should do to make sure this increase doesn’t come to pass—after all, scientists inform us that we should decrease emissions, not increase them—ExxonMobil tells us that we’ll need more and more oil and gas.  In essence, their strategy perpetuates the problem.  Remember what Chairman Tillerson told The New York Times:  “I am going to keep doing what we do better than anyone else in the world—finding, developing and delivering oil and gas to the world.”  But the problem they perpetuate is the same one they tell us they care about!

Are you dizzy yet?

Would Chairman Tillerson suggest that we “care about the world of our children and grandchildren” by pouring GHGs into the atmosphere, altering and destabilizing the climate, acidifying the oceans, sending boatloads of money overseas, and blindly protecting an industry that employs few people, relatively speaking?  Or, would he admit that it would be much better to transition to clean energy sources, preserve the climate, keep our money here, generate brave new worlds of American jobs, and embrace a healthier future?

And consider this:  When the U.S. House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming held its high-profile hearing back in 2008—on April Fools Day, no less—ExxonMobil sent one of its execs and Board members at the time, J.S. Simon, to deliver a prepared statement.  Mr. Simon explained to the Committee that the oil industry depends on very high earnings when times are good in order to sustain a high level of investment in the business over the long-term, including during less-good times.  In essence, he argued that enactment of the changes in tax law being considered—i.e., changes intended to encourage investment in clean energy—would unfairly reduce oil company cash flow and would “impact investment in future energy supplies”.  Yet, in their written statement, ExxonMobil didn’t bother to tell the Committee about the many billions of dollars it distributes to shareholders each year as dividends and buybacks.  (In their 2009 report, for example, they highlight the fact that they distributed a total of more than $150 Billion to shareholders in the last five years alone, including $26 Billion in 2009.)  How is it that the oil industry truly depends on a continuation of favorable tax treatment, supposedly necessary to its ability to sustain investment in oil and gas, when it distributes so many billions of dollars each year instead of reinvesting them?

Another main point that Mr. Simon (ExxonMobil) wanted to convey to the Committee was that “all reliable and economic forms of energy are needed to meet growing needs—but the pursuit of alternative fuels must not detract from the development of oil and gas.”  Minutes later, he wanted the Committee to understand a forecast that “renewable energy sources such as biofuels, wind, solar and geothermal will account for only about two percent of global energy supply in 2030”, adding “again, an indicator of the scale [of continuing investment in oil and gas] required.”

In essence, it seems that ExxonMobil told the Committee:  Don’t dare change our tax treatment.  We won’t find it attractive to continue to invest in our own business if you do.  Never mind our huge cash distributions.  And by the way, renewable energy sources aren’t going to amount to much anyhow.  But thanks for asking!

(As a side note:  Very soon after appearing before the Committee on ExxonMobil’s behalf, Mr. Simon announced his retirement.)

Of course, we haven’t even discussed ExxonMobil’s confusing and often misleading PR campaign, their lobbying efforts, and so forth.

So what’s up?

About 83% of ExxonMobil’s substantial “net proved developed and undeveloped reserves” of liquids is in countries other than the U.S.  And about 82% of their “net proved developed and undeveloped reserves” of natural gas is in countries other than the U.S.  In other words, the vast majority of ExxonMobil’s “black gold” mine is outside the U.S.  Most of it isn’t “Texas tea” as we heard on the Beverly Hillbillies.

ExxonMobil anxiously grasps its gigantic but unsustainable gold mines, pumps cash (much of it from your wallet to places far away), pours GHGs into the atmosphere, pushes its publicity machine, and doesn’t seem to comprehend the relationships between a healthy climate and the lives of our grandchildren.  They try to confuse you in the process.  Their actions delay the creation of millions of jobs and our ability to author a healthier future.  And that’s putting it politely.

Just think of the shiploads of money we’ll be sending overseas for years and years, the trillions of pounds of GHGs we’ll be pouring into the atmosphere, the lost opportunities to generate clean energy jobs here, and the world-class refineries that ExxonMobil will happily build in China, if we continue to foolishly follow the Exxonian way.

Then just say no!

(By the way, did I tell you the one about the new Chairman of General Motors who is also on ExxonMobil’s Board of Directors?)

Be Well—or at least Get Well Soon,

– Jeff Huggins

Related Post:

• “Today We Have a Planet That’s Smoking!”
• Is Masters champion Phil Mickelson unwittingly helping ExxonMobil greenwash its anti-science record?

• The New York Times sells its integrity to ExxonMobil with front-page ad that falsely asserts “Today’s car has 95% fewer emissions than a car from 1970.”
• Shame on the New York Times for running ExxonMobil’s greenwashing ad once again — they can’t plead ignorance this time, only greed

[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website; JURIST news archive] on Monday ruled [opinion, PDF] 7-1 in United States v. Marcus [Cornell LII backgrounder] that the lower court had misapplied precedent interpreting plain error in an alleged ex post facto violation. The court held that the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit had erred in its interpretation of two criteria in finding that a plain error had occurred at trial under Rule 52(b) [text] of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which would allow the defendant to raise the defense of an ex post facto violation for the first time on appeal. The Second Circuit held [opinion, PDF] that the appropriate standard for plain error review of an asserted ex post facto violation was whether “there is any possibility, no matter how unlikely, that the jury could have convicted based exclusively on pre-enactment conduct.” In overturning this standard, Justice Stephen Breyer explained:

[Case law] set[s] forth … that an appellate court may, in its discretion, correct an error not raised at trial only where the appellant demonstrates that (1) there is an “error”; (2) the error is “clear or obvious … “; (3) the error “affected the appellant’s substantial rights, which in the ordinary case means” it “affected the outcome of the district court proceedings”; and (4) “the error seriously affect[s] the fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” In our view, the Second Circuit’s standard is inconsistent with the third and the fourth criteria set forth in these cases. The third criterion … means that there must be a reasonable probability that the error affected the outcome of the trial. Th[e] standard [used by the Second Circuit] is irreconcilable with our “plain error” precedent. In cases applying this fourth criterion, we have suggested that, in most circumstances, an error that does not affect the jury’s verdict does not significantly impugn the “fairness,” “integrity,” or “public reputation” of the judicial process.

Justice John Paul Stevens filed a dissenting opinion, disagreeing with the majority’s conclusion that the appellate court was outside of its discretion:

The trial error at issue in this case undermined the defendant’s substantial rights by allowing the jury to convict him on the basis of an incorrect belief that lawful conduct was unlawful. … [T]he Court of Appeals properly exercised its discretion to remedy the error and to order a retrial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor took no part in the proceedings. She heard the case when it was before the Second Circuit prior to her nomination [JURIST report] to the Supreme Court.

Respondent Glenn Marcus was convicted of sex trafficking and forced labor under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act [text, PDF], enacted in October 2000, for conduct that spanned from January 1999 to October 2001. In February, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments [transcript, PDF; JURIST report] for the case. Counsel for the US government argued that, “[u]nder Rule 52(b), a defendant asserting a forfeited claim of error may prevail only by showing at a minimum a reasonable possibility that the error actually affected the outcome of the case.” Counsel for the respondent argued for the application of the Second Circuit’s standard.

At a Developer Day event in South Africa today, Samsung tried to emulate Google by giving every attendee a free Samsung Wave to help stimulate interest in their Bada OS.  Sure, it may not be an EVO 4G, but it is sure to get some people interested in developing for their platform.  At the event, Samsung also revealed some details on their upcoming application store for Bada:

In a move that makes complete sense (given that the next-generation iPhone is right around the corner), BGR is reporting that Apple has stopped shipments of the iPhone 3G 8 GB.  The $99 sensation is likely to be replaced by the iPhone 3GS upon release of the iPhone HD/4G, but it’s interesting nonetheless.  For those interested in the 3G, be sure to pick it up before it’s too late!

Via BGR

At this point, we’ve probably said all that needs to be said about Stephen Strasburg(notes) (0.89 ERA), Mike Stanton(notes) (17 HR), and Carlos Santana(notes) (.994 OPS). Which is not to suggest we’ll stop talking about them. In fact, Strasburg is scheduled to start on Monday night against the Toledo Mud Hens, so there’s a fair chance he’ll pitch his way into Closing Time. But after 40.1 brilliant innings in the high minors, you shouldn’t need to be told that he’s pretty good.

We’ve also dedicated blog posts — or at least bullets — to Desmond Jennings(notes) (11 SB), Buster Posey(notes) (.327 AVG), Pedro Alvarez(notes) (10 HR), Jeremy Hellickson(notes) (55 Ks in 50 IP), Brett Wallace(notes) (.912 OPS), and Aroldis Chapman(notes) (48 Ks in 40.2 IP). These names should all be well-known if you play in a league where prospects matter. 

There are, of course, many other relevant fantasy prospects who find themselves just a level or two away from the majors. Our purpose today is to review a few of them. The names below are not ranked; if even one of them becomes a must-add fantasy commodity this season, that would be a minor miracle. (Bad pun. Just noticed. Not originally intended). No one is saying that these guys are going to win you a fantasy title, or even make your 2011 roster. But if you’re involved in a deep, competitive format — seriously deep, where players like Strasburg and Santana have been owned for months — then the players below should be on your radar. Dozens of others should, too, but today we’re focused on guys at Double and Triple-A who’ve been piling up numbers.  

(And yeah, even in a post that’s supposedly not going to involve Strasburg, we led with his picture, featured his name in the headline, then repeated it four times in the introduction. He’s a bit more clickable than, say, this dude…)

Jose Tabata(notes), Pit, OF
Alvarez is the Pirates prospect that we’re all waiting for, but this guy could arrive first and have a greater short-term fantasy impact. Acquired from the Yankees in the Xavier Nady(notes) deal, the 21-year-old Tabata currently leads the International League in stolen bases (19) and he’s hitting .320/.379/.426. There’s not much power here, unless you’re looking for doubles, but he’s a career .298 hitter in the minors and he can clearly run.

Mike Minor, Atl, SP
Another year, another excellent Braves pitching prospect. Ho-hum. This left-hander leads all minor leaguers in strikeouts, with 72 Ks in just 49.2 innings at Double-A Mississippi. Minor’s fantasy ratios aren’t overwhelming (3.44 ERA, 1.23 WHIP), but he’s had double-digit strikeout totals in three of his last five starts. His velocity has been better than expected, too (low to mid-90s). The former Vanderbilt star was the seventh overall pick in last year’s draft.

Mike Moustakas(notes), KC, 3B
After an underwhelming year in the Carolina League (16 HR, 10 SB, .250 AVG), Moustakas has decisively reclaimed his elite prospect status in Double-A at age 21. He leads the Texas League in all the Triple Crown categories (12-40-.395), and his .816 slugging percentage is the best in the minors, topping even Stanton (.735). If Moustakas can maintain anything close to his current pace, this is a guy we’ll be desperate to see next June.

Andrew Cashner(notes), ChC, SP
The hard-throwing right-hander was excellent at Double-A early in the year (2.75 ERA, 10.5 K/9), and he’s been unbeatable since making the leap to Triple-A. In three starts for Iowa, he’s 3-0 with a 0.95 ERA, 0.79 WHIP and 14 Ks in 19.0 innings. The Cubs can’t seem to figure out how to squeeze the organization’s most expensive pitcher into the starting rotation right now (Carlos Zambrano(notes)), so there’s obviously no room for Cashner at the moment. He could have been useful in a relief role, but now that Bob Howry(notes) is on board, the ‘pen is loaded. (Yes, that’s a joke).  

Travis Wood(notes), Cin, SP
You might recall that it was Wood — not Aroldis Chapman — who finished as the runner-up to Mike Leake(notes) for the Reds’ fifth starter gig back in the spring. The 23-year-old lefty has pitched a couple of messy outings for Triple-A Louisville, but in his last two appearances he’s allowed only six hits over 14 innings, and he’s struck out 16. Wood now has 57 Ks in 56.1 innings; he’ll be an option if Homer Bailey(notes) (shoulder) hits the DL. 

Domonic Brown(notes), Phi, OF
There’s not exactly a clear path to the big leagues this year, but we should see Brown in 2011. He’s been terrific at Double-A Reading, delivering seven homers and seven steals while hitting .311/.387/.582. Brown was excellent at three minor league stops in ’09, too: 14 HR, 23 SB, .299 AVG, .880 OPS. This spring, he hit a bomb off Justin Verlander(notes) that still hasn’t landed. (Video here). 

Daniel Hudson(notes), ChW, SP
If the White Sox become deadline sellers (possible) and/or Freddy Garcia(notes) continues to struggle (certain), then Hudson will eventually make his way back to Chicago. His most recent start for Triple-A Charlotte was an eight-inning, three-hit, 11-K shutout. Hudson has 59 strikeouts in 48.1 innings this year. His ERA isn’t pretty (4.47), but most of the ugliness occurred in a disastrous one-inning effort at Colorado Springs (8 H, 9 ER, 2 HR). Since that game, he’s given up only seven runs in 32.0 innings while striking out 41 batters and walking just six. 

Lance Lynn(notes), StL, SP
The 23-year-old righty is on a nice roll at Triple-A Memphis, having limited opponents to one ER or less in five of his last seven starts. On Saturday, Lynn held Sacramento to three hits and no runs over eight innings, striking out nine. He went 11-4 last season across three levels (mostly Double-A), with a 2.85 ERA and 124 Ks in 148.2 innings. He’s allowed only seven homers in 200.1 IP over the past two years. With Kyle Lohse(notes) and Brad Penny(notes) both dealing with injuries, Lynn could sneak into the starting mix earlier than expected. 

Derrick Robinson, KC, OF
If you’re looking for future speed, this is your guy. He’s one of the fastest men in professional baseball anything. The 22-year-old has already swiped 25 bags for Northwest Arkansas this season, and he’s batting .310/.407/.406. (That slash line is a massive improvement over last year’s .239/.290/.324 at Single-A, and he’s drawing walks at a much better rate). Robinson stole 62 bases in the Carolina League in 2008 and 69 in ’09. 

Tanner Scheppers(notes), Tex, RP
Scheppers could be a useful middle reliever in the not-so-distant future. He’s posted an ERA of 1.29 this year in 11 appearances at Double and Triple-A, and he’s struck out 34 batters while allowing only 11 hits in 21.0 innings. When the Rangers’ overworked bullpen needs help, Scheppers is just a level away.

Madison Bumgarner(notes), SF, SP
After rediscovering some lost velocity and enhancing his arsenal, the 20-year-old lefty has been outstanding. He hasn’t yielded more than two runs in any of his last seven Triple-A starts, dating back to April 19. Bumgarner began the season with a pair of ugly stat-lines, but lately he’s been extremely effective, though not quite the K-machine we saw in ’08 

Simon Castro, SD, SP
If he were with another organization, maybe this 22-year-old right-hander would receive more attention. Castro is 6-foot-5, he throws in the mid to high-90s, and he K’d 157 batters in 140.1 innings in the Midwest League last season. Now at Double-A, he’s posted a 1.75 ERA and 0.96 WHIP in 51.1 innings.

—

Photos via US Presswire

This weekend, I had a conversation with someone non-crazy who thinks there is a not-insignificant chance that the Supreme Court will overturn health care reform, or at least the individual mandate (it’s not clear what happens to the rest of the law if the mandate goes down; there’s some possibility that this would invalidate the entire law).  Mind you, this person was not suggesting that the chances were, say, 85%; more like 25%.

But in a case like this, 25% is a big chance.  So we spent a bit of time speculating about what would happen next.

We know what happens if the court simply invalidates the mandate:  you get New York State, where the cost of insurance spirals out of control, until the few remaining people in the individual market are so sick that the death spiral bottoms out.  Adverse selection does have its limits, which is why, even before lemon laws, there was a market (however imperfect) for used cars.

What happens after that?  That would leave politicians deciding whether to repeal the most popular features, or end individual health insurance as we know it.  Fun choice.  My guess is that we’d get some weird hybrid model of corporate and state-sponsored insurance–but the state sponsored insurance would probably itself be overwhelmed by adverse selection, or (if we simply funded universal coverage out of tax dollars), by employers dumping their employees onto the public plan.  But I have no idea where the money would come from.

But what if the whole thing goes?  I don’t see a way forward for anything that current progressives think of as health care reform; it basically precludes the Netherlands model, and possibly most of the other European models, though I have to think more about the latter before I’m sure.  But there’s a strong possibility that any ruling that eliminated the individual mandate would make anything but single payer or a national health service illegal.  Ironically, a conservative court might push health policy to the left.

Or maybe a better way to put it is that it would polarize the choices:  incremental tweaks, or single payer. (I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that our legislators would not pursue the folly of guaranteed issue and community rating without a mandate).  Where would it go?

Not, I think, in the direction of single payer.  The bill would be staggering.  Yes, yes, I know you want to raise taxes to pay for it, but the price tag would still give American voters sticker shock.  You’d never get it through the Senate unless the composition of that august body radically changed.

My hope is that in this unlikely event, it would open the way for something more like what I’ve proposed:  catastrophic income insurance for everyone (i.e., the government will cover health care costs above some fairly high percentage of your income), with less support for first-dollar coverage. 

But that’s a pretty wan hope.  And unless these lawsuits clear the court systems before 2014, the dislocations would be massive.

Things have been pretty stable today (albeit down), but a bout of selling has come over the market in the past several minutes, and the Dow is off nearly 1% with out 50 minutes to go in the day.

It’s the same story with the S&P 500, though last week’s big loser, the NASDAQ, is holding up pretty well, though it’s down after having been in the green all day.

Some other notable markets include gold, which is up very nicely, and the euro, which has dropped below $1.24.

Join the conversation about this story »

Mr. Schuester hits one out of the park with a rousing rendition of The National Anthem….

On Saturday, Glee’s Matthew Morrison performed our National Anthem — “The Star-Spangled Banner” –just before the start of the Mets-Yankees game in Flushing, New York, and he sounded great!

Check out Matt’s take on America’s most patriotic song HERE:

Likely in anticipation of the upcoming T-Mobile myTouch 3G Slide launch, the original myTouch is now available for free from T-Mobile (with new two-year contract). Remember, the myTouch 3G started off as the second Android device ever and turned into T-Mobile’s flagship Android device (it still gets tons of commercials!)–it was definitely a solid phone from Android’s previous generation. But with the myTouch 3G Slide besting the myTouch 3G in every way, it was due for a huge price cut. If you really want a myTouch, we’d wait until June 2nd for the myTouch 3G Slide. It doesn’t make sense to invest in the previous generation anymore, even if it is for free. [t-mobile via tmonews]

This is a post by Android Central. It is sponsored by the Android Central Accessories Store

Should Congress or the EPA act to address the threat of global warming? Speaker Nancy Pelosi said that Congress must act – and she’s right. The House passed legislation last year, and recently Senators Kerry and Lieberman introduced a very different approach called the American Power Act. But both bills would cut carbon pollution, curb our dependence on oil from unstable regions of the world and create millions of new clean energy jobs according to a new study from the Peterson Institute.

But within the next couple of weeks the Senate may well decide to do “none of the above.” Senator Lisa Murkowski is proposing legislation to strip EPA of all authority to reduce carbon pollution, make us more reliant on foreign oil, and do nothing to help American manufacturing compete with China or other nations in clean energy technologies.

Sen. Murkowski’s bill would nullify EPA’s finding of scientific fact that greenhouse gases cause harmful global warming – a finding that forms the legal basis for any further steps EPA can take to address carbon pollution. A vote for Murkowski’s resolution is a vote against the strong scientific consensus that climate change is a real threat we must avoid. Just earlier this week, the National Academy of Sciences reaffirmed that consensus when it described the likelihood that much of global warming is not caused by human activities as “vanishingly small.”

Sen. Murkowski’s bill would make us more reliant on foreign oil. It would dismantle the government’s program to reduce carbon pollution from cars and trucks – a program that U.S. automakers and the Obama Administration agreed last year to put in place – which will save Americans more than 1.8 billion barrels of oil over the lifetime of the affected vehicles, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. At oil prices of $80 a barrel, that’s more than $80 billion worth of foreign oil Americans will not have to buy thanks to these standards.

Sen. Murkowski’s bill would do little or nothing for American manufacturers at a time when many are struggling to recover in these tough economic times. For American manufacturers hoping to compete with Chinese companies entering the clean energy, Sen. Murkowski’s approach would provide no assistance or incentive to innovate.

And Sen. Murkowski’s bill is outright opposed by American auto manufacturers. That’s because the agreement the Obama Administration and automakers reached last year also included California and 13 other states that agreed to set aside their own regulations of automobile emissions. With no national program, the agreement would fall and states would be free once again to move forward independently, leaving the automobile industry without the nationwide uniformity that it has described as vital to its business.

The Senate should reject this “do nothing” approach and get back to the important task of passing climate and energy legislation.

Over the weekend, Jeff Collins at the O.C. Register noted that the “Central Park West” complex in Irvine, California that was mothballed by Lennar in 2007 is now back on the market.

And from Amanda Fung at Crain’s New York: ‘Shadow’ condos dim sale outlook (ht Nick)

A little over two years ago, SDS Procida suspended plans to market The Dillon, its 83-unit Hell’s Kitchen condo, when residential real estate tanked … the developer finally put the units on the block three weeks ago.

…

“It is still early—you’re not seeing a flood of apartments yet—but we may see it happen during the second half of the year,” says Jonathan Miller, chief executive of appraisal firm Miller Samuel Inc.

…

Mr. Miller estimates that there were 6,500 units of shadow space in Manhattan alone during the first quarter of this year. If those apartments were unloaded all at once, supply would potentially skyrocket by 70%.

The term “shadow inventory” is used in many different ways. My definition is: housing units that are not currently listed on the market, but will probably be listed soon. This includes:

• Unlisted new high rise condos as discussed above. Note: these properties are not included in the new home inventory report.
• Homeowners waiting for a better market. Some of the increase in inventory in April might have been sellers hoping to take advantage of the tax credit. This includes the accidental landlords who will try to sell as soon as the market improves and the current tenant’s lease expires.
• REOs, foreclosures in process and some percentage of seriously delinquent loans (some will cure, some are already listed as short sales). See: Mortgage Delinquencies by Period
• It is difficult to put a number on the total, but it is in the millions of units and all this inventory will keep downward pressure on house prices for some time.

Join the conversation about this story »

Transocean Ltd., the Swiss company operating the Deepwater Horizon oil rig when it blew up last month, raised plenty of eyebrows last week when it announced its plan to pay out $1 billion in dividends to shareholders.

“It’s heartwarming to see that Transocean, the same company that rushed to limit its liability in the Deepwater Horizon rig explosion, seemed not to hesitate at all when it came to the decision to distribute its profits,” one maritime expert wrote of the plan.

Today, 19 Senate Democrats took the scrutiny a long step further, asking the Justice Department to investigate whether those payouts are appropriate “at a time when [the company] may be responsible for financial damages related to the massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.”

“Transocean’s stockholders,” the lawmakers wrote in a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, ”should not take huge profits from polluting our country’s Gulf Coast.”

We are concerned that such action to quickly move money out of corporate coffers to individual investors may make it more difficult to pursue liability claims against the company.  Families of those who died in the disaster, the fishing industry that has been devastated by the oil spill and the governments that have worked full-time to clean up this spill deserve better.  Transocean has also reported that it expects to make a $270 million profit on its insurance policy for the Deepwater Horizon, since the rig was insured for more than it was worth.

Signing onto the letter were Democratic Sens. Pat Leahy (Vt.), Charles Schumer (N.Y.), Tom Harkin (Iowa), Robert Menendez (N.J.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Byron Dorgan (N.D.), Patty Murray (Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Bill Nelson (Fla.), Mark Pryor (Ark.), Mark Udall (Colo.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), Michael Bennet (Colo.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Robert Casey (Pa.).

Of note, Transocean is not exactly known for its corporate citizenship. Until recently, the company was based in Houston, but officials moved the headquarters to Switzerland “to avoid paying higher corporate taxes.“

vitamins nutrients

Vitamins For Hair Loss – Discover the 9 Important Vitamin Nutrients to Overcome Your Scalp Problems

Have you just discovered a sudden and unexpected loss of hair? Many folks will encourage you to simply take vitamins for hair loss but you must seek an urgent health checkup from your doctor, registered medical practitioner or dermatologist to determine just exactly what may be the cause of this condition.

You will then need to establish a well balanced vitamins for hair loss program that incorporates several attacking fronts at the same time if you really want to restore and maintain the good health of your scalp.

The 9 essential nutrients to regain and promote a healthy scalp

1. Vitamin A (found in fish liver oil, spinach, broccoli, cabbage, carrots, apricots and peaches). Plays a role in a variety of functions throughout the body, such as immune function, maintaining normal skin health, hypokeratosis (white lumps in follicles). Warning: Consuming a large quantity of vitamin A daily is toxic to the body.
2. Vitamin B3 – niacin (found in brewers yeast, wheat germ and fish). Boosts scalp circulation.
3. Vitamin B5 – pantothenic acid (whole grain cereals, brewers’ yeast and egg yolks). Prevents strand falling and graying.
4. Vitamin B6 (brewers’ yeast, whole grain cereals, vegetables and egg yolks). Essential for protein and red blood cell metabolism and for the nervous and immune systems. It is helpful in prevention of thinning of strands.
5. Vitamin B12 (fish and eggs). Assists in preventing hair loss.
6. Vitamin C (citrus fruits, strawberries, kiwifruit, cantaloupe, pineapple, tomatoes, green peppers, potatoes and dark green veggies). Promotes healthy skin and hair and ensures the health of capillaries supplying blood to follicles.
7. Vitamin E (cereals, green leafy vegetables, broccoli, soybeans, eggs, cold-pressed vegetable oils, wheat germ oil, raw seeds, nuts and dried beans). Increases the oxygen in our system and improves circulation to the scalp.
8. Vitamin H – biotin or B7 (royal jelly, brewers’ yeast, liver, legumes, soybeans, swiss chard, tomatoes, romaine lettuce, carrots, almonds, eggs, onions, cabbage, cucumber, cauliflower, goats’ or cows’ milk, raspberries, strawberries, halibut, oats, and walnuts). Biotin is necessary for cell growth and is shown by many studies to stimulate and maintain a healthy scalp.
9. Vitamin B9 – folic acid, also known as folacin or folate (leafy vegetables such as spinach, asparagus, turnip greens, lettuces, dried or fresh beans and peas, fortified cereal products, sunflower seeds, liver and liver products and certain other fruits and vegetables and bakers’ yeast are rich sources of folate). Both children and adults require folic acid to produce healthy red blood cells and prevent anemia. It is also essential to numerous other bodily functions.

What about the important minerals & herbs?

Don’t forget the minerals essential to maintaining a healthy head of hair: zinc, calcium, manganese, magnesium, iron, copper and sulphur. Plus the herbal extracts: horsetail silica, saw palmetto, indian ginseng, omega-3 and evening primrose.

These are found in the same fresh produce as for above listed vitamins or produced from ground herbs or herbal extracts and are available in capsules, tablets or powder form.

So, the first plan of action to get the vitamins for hair loss you need is to eat regular, fresh and well balanced meals, alternatively you can undertake a daily course of balanced tablet or capsule supplements.

My personal recommendation of the best action to take today is using a totally natural solution which can be checked out here on my website. It is a new, highly effective, well-priced and totally natural remedy which includes all the necessary vitamins for hair loss that will produce no side effects whatsoever.

About the Author

Alan Wheeler is a dedicated researcher of current hair loss issues affecting both men and women. To learn about this new, highly effective natural hair loss remedy that Alan recently discovered and is now using daily, check out his web site at http://hair-loss.achievebetterhealth.com/ and see how it stacks up against other common hair loss treatment options.

What vitamins/nutrients are present in Psidium Guajava?

can’t find the Atlas

[phpbay]vitamins nutrients, 100[/phpbay]
The Truth about Vitamins & Supplements – Clinical Nutrition

Vitamins Nutrients is a post from the Vegetarian Vitamins Guide blog where you can find suggestions and advice from vegetarians and vegans on vegetarian diets, supplements, vitamins and overall nutrition.

We all have them: those brief, spontaneous little melodies that pop into the back of our heads, undoubtedly destined for greatness if only we had an ounce of musical talent or a five piece band at our disposal. Well, now you wannabe-maestros have your chance. UJAM is a new startup making its debut today at TechCrunch Disrupt that can turn your humming, whistling, kazoo-playing or not-so-in-tune vocals into something people might actually want to listen to. And it’s really, really cool.

There’s plenty of advanced technology working in the background, but to the user, the site really seems like magic. Whistle a few notes of ‘Ode to Joy’, and in seconds you’ll hear your tune played back by a grand piano. Or an electric guitar. Or a full orchestra, complete with sweeping crescendos that somehow fit your tune perfectly. You can swap between these options in a few clicks, tweaking the results until they suit your fancy. If you happen to sing a few notes out of key, UJam will fix them for you. And if you play an instrument (or at least, try to), you can also use this to quickly turn your one-man show into a full band.

Last Saturday, on the United Nation’s International Day for Biodiversity, an open letter from hundreds of British organisations warned of the importance of our rapidly eroding biodiversity, while a UN report discussed the economic consequences of this erosion. The general principle of conserving biodiversity has inarguable value but there’s much more debate about how best to do it.

Take national parks and reserves –these protected areas save wildlife but they stop local people from using the land for farming and from using its resources. The argument that such limitations prioritise “cuddly animals” over “poor people” is particularly sharp in developing countries, where rural communities are said to bear the costs of protected areas without reaping their benefits.

But a new study in Costa Rica and Thailand says that such objections are unfounded. By actually comparing similar communities on a small scale, Kwaw Andam from Washington’s International Food Policy Research Institute has shown that protected areas actually help to alleviate poverty.

In 2003, the so-called Durban Accord from the World Congress on Protected Areas urged commitments to “protected area management that strives to reduce, and in no way exacerbates, poverty”. Well and easily said, but studying the link between poverty and protection is quite difficult. The two seem to go hand in hand, but protected areas are often set up in far-flung areas where poverty if rife. How can you actually tell if they worsen the situation?

Andam did it by focusing on protected areas in Costa Rica and Thailand. These developing nations have very different cultures and histories but they are both hotspots of biodiversity that set up protected areas a long time ago. And importantly, they both have good sources national statistics.

Using these data, Andam’s team compared communities where at least 10% of the land had been protected with those where less than 1% had been. This difference aside, they compared like for like, matching the various communities in terms of their forest cover, their access to transportation, the productivity of their land, and how poor they were before protected zones were set up. The analysis was very detailed, zooming in at a fine regional level and taking data about poverty from household surveys. The team also focused on protected areas that had been around for 15 years or more, to get a sense of their long-term impact.

On the surface, the link between poverty and protection seemed clear. As with many other countries, the Costa Rican and Thai communities with high levels of protected biodiversity were much poorer than those with little protection. But these areas were already among the poorest parts of the two countries before the protected zones were set up.

Taking this into account, Andam’s matched comparisons revealed that protected areas don’t exacerbate the economic shortfalls of local communities. If anything, they actually make things better. Put it another way, if the protected areas hadn’t been set up, the local people would probably be even worse off than they actually are.

Could there be other explanations? Certainly, but Andam systematically ruled them out. Andam showed that the genesis of the protected areas didn’t affect the population growth of the relevant areas, which shows that poor people weren’t being pushed out into neighbouring regions. Andam also considered the possibility that the costs of protected areas were spilling over into neighbouring communities, affecting a far wider catchment area than he suspected. But when he left out control regions that were within 10km of a protected area and re-ran his analysis, he got the same result.

This is an important study, which provides some much needed evidence in the area of conservation policy. It’s also very encouraging. Previously, Andam has shown that the networks of protected areas have slowed the pace of deforestation and his latest results show that this success hasn’t come at the cost of local development. If anything, things have improved for local people as a result. It’s not clear how, but it could be that protected areas bring opportunities from business and investments, promote tourism, or improve local infrastructure.

However, Andam is rightly cautious. He notes that his results present an average trend over several decades. In the short term, things may get worse before they get better, and not all districts would benefit equally. Poverty is also only one aspect of a community’s wellbeing and there’s no data on their ability to maintain their cultural traditions, or to feel in control of their fates.

And, obviously, Costa Rica and Thailand are but two countries. Both have enjoyed a lot of investment in their protected areas and in eco-tourism so the same trends may not apply in other parts of the world. (Andam also writes that they had “relatively stable political systems” but the current Thai situation probably doesn’t support that statement!)

Andam calls for other researchers to do a similar analysis in other parts of the world to get a global picture of the impact of protected areas. For now, we have a restricted view of this picture, albeit a positive one. As he writes, “Our results… suggest that protecting biodiversity can contribute to both environmental sustainability and poverty alleviation, two of the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.”

Reference: PNAS http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0914177107 If this link isn’t working, read why here

Image: by Haakon S. Krohn

More on conservation:

• Fish make rapid comeback in the world’s largest no-fishing zone
• Fishing bans protect coral reefs from devastating predatory starfish
• Farmed salmon decimate wild populations by exposing them to parasites
• Shark-hunting harms animals at bottom of the food chain
• Human hunters unwittingly shrink their prey species at incredible rates
• How research saved the Large Blue butterfly

Are you looking for a new netbook at this moment in time, or at least in the immediate future? After all, you already have a decent smartphone, but would like something light and portable to tote around that can perform basic computing tasks admirably without breaking your shoulder in the process. Verizon Wireless might just have the thing for you, in the form of the HP Mini 210 netbook. This model will come in a Black Crystal color, where you get built-in 3G Mobile Broadband connectivity in a slim and lightweight design that ought to appeal to most road warriors. Gone are the days where netbooks tend to die after a while, the HP Mini 210 is a hardy device where it boasts up to a claimed 8.75 hours of battery life, making sure that you can even bring this on a long haul flight and get a whole lot of work done, taking breaks in between to watch reruns on the in-flight entertainment system. The HP Mini 210 has enough muscle to cater to both students and business travelers and basically anyone who wants to surf the Web, check e-mail, listen to music and access information while on the go. When used with a Verizon Wireless GlobalAccess service plan, you can rely on the HP Mini 210 to browse the Web or access e-mail in more than 200 destinations worldwide without worrying about the insane bill which arrives at your doorstep at the end of the month. Among the key features and specifications of the HP Mini 210 will include the Genuine Windows 7 OS, 10.1: LED, 250 GB hard drive, 1GB RAM, HP Webcam, integrated speakers, 1.66 GHz processor, Bluetooth capability and more. Super cheap too. You can pick up the HP Mini 210-1076NR for $149.99 after a $100 mail-in rebate with a new two-year customer agreement on a Mobile Broadband plan. With regards to its Broadband pricing, prices start from $39.99 monthly upwards, where it offers 250MB of data and $0.10/MB overage, while $59.99 will net you a 5GB monthly allowance at a same overage rate.

© 2007 Freakitude dot Com.

Share This