Blog

– Um — somehow I don’t think blonde is Nic’s color. Must we add color t the myriad of things wrong with your hair, Mr. Cage? In fact, the phrase “Hot Mess” springs to mind, but I’ll let you to be the judge….

-Donovan McNabb is now a Washington Redskin……

–Wanda Sykes spoofs Erykah Badu’s “grossly misunderstood” and ass out “Window Seat” video…..

A 7.2 magnitude earthquake shook near California’s Mexico border on Sunday, and celebs are Tweeting through the aftermath…..

-The Apple iPad sold 300,000 units in its first weekend of release….

-Did you miss Janet Jackson on Friday’s Oprah? Here’s a clip…..

–The Hollywood Reporter has unveiled its annual list of shows in danger of being banished to the TV Land Graveyard!

-Tiki Barber and his wife Ginny have split after 11 years of marriage….

-PETA want Jedward — the futuristic X Factor twins — to get naked in the name of fur hate as part of their next ad campaign…..

-Songbird Celine Dion will release her eighth fragrance in September…..

-Introducing MTV’s Jersey Shore: Senior Citizens Edition, because nothing goes together like geriatrics and gangbanging!

For thousands of Americans without work and collecting unemployment insurance, the process gets stickier today with the arrival of the deadline for accessing the next tier of benefits — a deadline estimated to drop hundreds of thousands of jobless folks from the UI rolls this week.

This filing deadline is different than the “expiration of benefits” that many news outlets are reporting this morning. If you’re currently collecting checks in one tier of the five-tier process (which includes state help and four levels of federal help), those checks will continue to arrive until you exhaust the weeks remaining in that tier.

(Currently, state benefits run for 26 weeks; Tier I of the federal help for 20 weeks; Tier II for 14 weeks; Tier III for 13 weeks (for states with unemployment rates higher than 6 percent); and Tier IV for another 6 weeks for states with unemployment rates topping 8.5 percent.)

So, for example, if you’re on week 13.5 of Tier II benefits, you won’t be able to apply for Tier III later this week, when Tier II expires.

That’s not as harsh as having the checks stop for everyone, but nor is the deadline trivial. The National Employment Law Project estimates that 212,000 unemployed folks will lose their benefits this week, without the option of filing for the next level.

The Senate tried to extend that filing deadline through the end of April, but an objection by Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) sent the lawmakers on their two-week spring break without passing the bill. The best they could manage was to launch the cloture process, which will allow Democrats to pass the bill despite the Coburn’s blockade. (The Oklahoma Republican wants to pay the $9.2 billion tab using unspent stimulus funds. The Democrats’ bill puts the tab on the deficit.)

The Senate is scheduled to vote next Monday on the cloture measure. The office of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said that the benefits will be retroactive to today.

Acaba de ser publicado un nuevo vídeo en el que podemos ver en movimiento al nuevo McLaren MP4-12C. Este increible deportivo biplaza de tracción traserá llegará al mercado en Enero de 2011. Se fabricarán durante su primer año 1.000 unidades.

Su precio apróximado será de 200.000€. Hace uso de un motor V8 sobrealimentado con dos turbocompresores de 600CV. Dicho motor va unido a una caja de cambios automática de doble embrague y siete velocidades.

A continuación os dejo con el vídeo, que lo disfruteis:

Related posts:

1. Audi RS5, vídeo disponible
2. Renault Wind, vídeo disponible
3. Toyota FT-86, vídeo disponible

Samsung is a strange company. They, like many other companies, fight tooth and nail to keep their products a secret. Then they go and show four unannounced handsets at a developer event — sans any details beyond appearance. Did they just forget these weren’t announced? Are they trying to build up the hype? Either way: it’s four new devices, so we’re happy.

Phonereport got their hands on the slide above, which appears to be showing off four Bada-powered smartphones that will follow the Samsung Wave.

To explain a bit: It’s getting cheaper from left to right. The Wave is Samsung’s top end phone, with the other two unnamed beauties going for progressively less.

What do you think? Any of them catching your eye?

[Via EngadgetMobile]

by Agence France-Presse

Photo courtesy the.rohit via FlickrSYDNEY—Australian authorities were Monday battling to prevent a badly damaged Chinese coal carrier stranded on the Great Barrier Reef from spilling tonnes of oil into pristine waters teeming with marine life.

The Shen Neng 1 ran aground on Saturday when it hit a shoal off the eastern state of Queensland at full speed, apparently breaching a fuel tank and causing a two mile slick in the scenic tourist spot.

Authorities remain concerned that the ship, which is being hit by a two to three-meter swell and grinding against the reef, may break up but professional salvage experts on board believe that risk has diminished.

“The ship is stuck on a shoal and wave action is meaning that it’s moving,” Marine Safety Queensland (MSQ) spokesman Mark Strong told AFP. “Every time that happens you increase the risk of damage to the structure. The assessment as of now from the salvors is that the ship is reasonably stable.”

The Chinese-registered carrier, which is loaded with 65,000 tonnes of coal and about 975 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, is stranded 43 miles east of the resort destination Great Keppel Island.

One tug boat was already at the scene trying to stabilize the vessel and another will arrive early Tuesday, while aircraft were being used to monitor the spill in waters that are home to hundreds of species of coral and fish.

“In the current conditions we are reasonably assured, as far as we can be, that there will be no catastrophic break-up of the ship, but if the weather turned bad it will be another problem,” MSQ general Patrick Quirk said.

The vessel hit Douglas Shoal at the southern end of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, 15 nautical miles outside the nearest shipping channel, at full speed.

Authorities said the damage was serious, confirming that the rudder was seriously damaged, the ship’s double bottom tanks which provide buoyancy had been breached, and one of the fuel tanks had also likely been breached.

So far, however, the oil spill has been limited to about three or four tonnes. After dispersant was used on the slick on Sunday, workers will now place a boom around the oil to prevent it from spreading further.

Queensland Premier Anna Bligh said salvage teams were assessing how they might be able to refloat the China-bound carrier, including removing all the oil from the ship first.

“This is going to be a very specialist and delicate operation,” she told the Nine Network.

“If this ship was to break further apart, if there was another very significant oil spill, then we would not only see tonnes of oil into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park but modeling shows it is likely to come up onto the beaches of Shoalwater Bay, which is a national park area.”

Bligh said the vessel was in a restricted zone of the Great Barrier Reef which was “totally off limits” to shipping and the government would investigate why the ship was so far off course.

The carrier’s Chinese owners, a subsidiary of Cosco Group, could be fined up to $920,000 and the captain handed a $230,000 penalty over the incident, she said.

The accident, which follows a large oil spill from the container carrier Pacific Adventurer in March 2009 which polluted Queensland beaches, has prompted warnings from conservationists about the impact on the reef as shipping increases.

The number of seaborne exports of coal and natural gas is set to surge in the coming decade as Queensland opens new resource developments to supply Asia’s growing energy needs.

The Great Barrier Reef, which covers 133,000 square miles along Australia’s northeast coast, is a major tourist attraction and home to hundreds of species including dugongs, dolphins, and sea turtles.

Related Links:

A movement far larger than the Tea Party

One more blow to the ailing Great Barrier Reef

After Copenhagen setback, U.N. seeks way forward on climate

From Green Right Now Reports

An oil spill created when a coal-carrying Chinese vessel grounded on Australia’s Great Barrier Reef poses a  threat to the world’s largest coral reef, home to thousands of marine species.

The Shen Neng I went aground at Douglas Shoals over the weekend. By Monday, about two tons of oil had spilled from the 1,000 tons on board, creating a 100-yard slick stretching over about two miles.

Queensland State Premier Anna Bligh announced plans to place a boom around the ship to contain the spill, while aircraft sprayed chemical dispersants to break up the slick.

“It’s in such a delicate part of the reef and the ship is in such a badly damaged state, managing this process will require all the specialist expertise we can bring to bear,” Bligh told reporters in Brisbane.

The ship’s owner, Shenzhen Energy, could be fined up to 1 million Australian dollars ($920,000) after the vessel strayed from a shipping lane used by 6,000 cargo vessels each year. Authorities fear the ship will break apart during the salvage operation and wreck more coral and spill more oil.

“One of the most worrying aspects is that the ship is still moving on the reef to the action of the seas, which is doing further damage,” said Patrick Quirk, General Manager of Marine Safety Queensland.

Maritime law specialist Michael White of the University of Queensland said oil is the major environmental threat posed by the grounding, adding that coal could do “considerable localized damage” but would dissipate quickly.

Professor Michael J. Glennon is one of the most thoughtful international legal scholars today. Previous posts have noted that last month Opinio Juris hosted the Yale Journal of International Law Online Symposium on Glennon’s article, “The Blank-Prose Crime of Aggression.” Glennon has an op ed in today’s International Herald Tribune on the upcoming ICC Review Conference and efforts to define the crime of aggression. Glennon writes:

Twice in recent months military and political leaders from Israel have reportedly cancelled trips to Britain out of concern that they might be arrested for alleged war crimes.

Officials from other countries could soon face a similar greeting — not only in Britain but also in France, Germany, Japan and other nations that are members of the International Criminal Court.

In May, the international court’s member states will meet in Kampala, Uganda, to consider adding a new crime of aggression to the offenses the court can prosecute. If they include it, all member nations will be required to arrest officials accused of that crime — even if they come from countries that refuse to join.

The Rome conference that created the international court in 1998 gave it power to prosecute four international crimes. One was aggression. Unable to reach consensus on what the term meant, the conference left it undefined. As a result, the crime of aggression has not been prosecutable.

But that would change if the newly-proposed definition were adopted. Under it, any political or military leader would be guilty of the crime of aggression if he exercises control or direction over any use of armed force that represents a manifest violation of the United Nations Charter.

Sensible enough in concept, the definition is maddeningly vague in application, largely because it is based upon a 1974 General Assembly resolution that was aimed at guiding state conduct, not defining individual criminal liability.

What constitutes a “manifest” violation of the charter? The truth is it’s impossible to say. The charter prohibits any non-defensive use of force not authorized by the Security Council. Yet five years ago a U.N. high-level panel found that violations of the charter’s use-of-force rules have been too numerous to count. By one count, the panel noted, force had been used 200 times from 1945 to 1989; by another count, 680 times. In almost all those conflicts, every nation involved contended that it acted lawfully. No impartial tribunal existed to decide which side was right.

Which individuals within those “aggressor” states exercised control or direction over the military actions in question? Again, one can only guess. Preparation for armed conflict engages numerous high-level diplomats, lawyers, intelligence analysts and, sometimes, legislators.

Precisely who exercises control or direction is therefore unclear. What is clear is that, had the proposed crime existed over recent decades, every U.S. president since John F. Kennedy and hundreds of political and military leaders from other countries would have been subject to potential indictment, arrest and prosecution.

Concern about potentially politicized prosecution is one reason that China, Russia, India and the United States have not become members of the international court.

Yet it would not matter for officials from those states that their countries have declined to join. Military action by their states could still be characterized as “aggression” under the proposed definition. If that action were to occur within the territory of a member state — there are now 110 — an indictment could issue. Other member states would thereafter be required to arrest the accused, who would then be transferred to The Hague to stand trial.

Max Weber wrote of the imperative of “calculability” in a legal system, the need to ensure that risks can be identified and addressed with reasonable predictability. In the contemporary international legal order, the “principle of legality” assumes this function. The principle requires that a criminal defendant be given clear notice as to what conduct is illegal before it occurs. Its aim is to provide a modicum of systemic stability by discouraging arbitrary arrest and prosecution.

The proposed new crime will undermine that principle, which lies at the heart of the rule of law. It will force hundreds of political and military leaders who act in good faith to guess when and where they will be arrested in their international travels. It will strain relations among allies and exacerbate tensions among adversaries. It will bollix an international equilibrium that already is precarious enough.

The 1998 treaty that established the International Criminal Court provides that it will be applied “consistent with internationally recognized human rights.” If the parties to the treaty honor that commitment in Kampala, they will reject this misbegotten new definition of aggression.

I agree wholehearted with Mike. In my response to his Symposium post, I wrote:

If the review conference seeks to define aggression along the lines proposed by the working group, it will only serve to undercut the legitimacy of international law. Indeed, given the current nature of state practice with respect to the use of force and the lack of compliance with the UN Charter framework,  I am led to the conclusion that aggression cannot be defined as a crime under international law at this time.

In my view the Review Conference should work on refining the workings of the Court on the issues it currently addresses– war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. As for aggression, it should remain, at present, a matter for the Security Council to determine. As Article 39 of the UN Charter provides:

The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security. (emphasis added)

And it remains useful to note that while the Security Council has determined that there have been “threats to the peace” and “breaches of the peace,” never in its history has the Council found that an “act of aggression” has occurred– adding great credence to Glennon’s argument.

by Agence France-Presse

PARIS—Countries gather this week in the hope of erasing bitter memories of the Copenhagen summit and restoring faith in the battered U.N. process for combating climate change.

Negotiators meet in Bonn from Friday to Sunday for the first official talks under the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) since the strife-torn confab.

Their first job will be stocktaking: to see what place climate change now has on the world political agenda.

Disappointment or disillusion swept many capitals when 120 heads of state and government returned from Copenhagen after coming within an inch of a fiasco.

Over the past three months, political interest in climate change has ebbed, says Sebastien Genest, vice president of a green group, France Nature Environment.

“The summit prompted a widespread sense of failure and a kind of gloom,” says Genest.

Moving to fill the vacuum are climate skeptics and pragmatists—those who call for priority to domestic interests and the economy rather than carbon emissions.

On the table in Bonn will be how to breathe life into the summit’s one solid outcome: the Copenhagen Accord.

The slender document was hastily crafted by the heads of 28 countries as the December 7-19 marathon wobbled on the brink of collapse.

It sets the goal of limiting warming to 2 degrees C (3.6 F), gathering rich and poor countries in action against carbon pollution.

It also promises $30 billion dollars for climate-vulnerable poor countries up to 2012, and as much as 100 billion dollars annually by 2020.

The deal falls way short of the post-2012 treaty that was supposed to emerge from the two-year haggle which climaxed in Copenhagen.

Its many critics say it has no deadline or roadmap for reaching the warming target and its pledges are only voluntary.

It was not even endorsed at a UNFCCC plenary, given the raucous reception it got from left-leaning countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. So far, less than two-thirds of the UNFCCC parties have signed up to it.

Yet the Accord also has powerful supporters.

While acknowledging its flaws, they note it is the first to include advanced and emerging economies in specified emissions curbs. And, they argue, it could provide the key to resolving climate financing, one of the thorniest problems in a post-2012 pact.

A big question in Bonn will be how to dovetail the Copenhagen Accord with the UNFCCC, so that money can be disbursed.

But negotiators will be unable to duck what went wrong at Copenhagen—the cripplingly slow textual debate, the entrenched defense of national interests, and the deep suspicion of rich countries among the developing bloc.

“The meeting … is going to be very important to rebuild confidence in the process, to rebuild confidence that the way forward will be open and transparent on the one hand, and efficient on the other,” UNFCCC Executive Secretary Yvo de Boer says.

Many voices, such as French President Nicolas Sarkozy, are arguing for changes to the UNFCCC’s labyrinthine, two-track negotiating process.

The final hours at Copenhagen showed how quickly things could move when handled by a small group, as opposed to gaining unanimity of all 194 parties in one go, they say.

The way forward could lie with a representative group which would advance on major issues and consult the full assembly, which would also vote on the outcome, according to this argument. Some are looking closely at the G20, which accounts for rich and emerging economies that together account for some 80 percent of global emissions.

Lord Nicholas Stern, a top British economist, says the G20 has gained clout and credibility thanks to the financial crisis. “We’ve essentially marginalized the G8 and replaced it with the G20,” Stern said in an interview in Paris.

Related Links:

A movement far larger than the Tea Party

One more blow to the ailing Great Barrier Reef

Coal freighter rams Great Barrier Reef, spilling oil into pristine waters

On a blustery day in downtown Los Angeles, the inclement conditions outside may not be just weather related. On this day, Dr. Conrad Murray will be back in court for a second time and the family of Michael Jackson will be in the courthouse with him. If this appearance is anything like the last one, Murray will need some significant security as the paparazzi and fan outrage will pack outside the court, the rain doing nothing to damper the attendance.

This hearing for MJ’s Doctor will be procedural, with the court setting a preliminary hearing date, assigning a judge and possibly adjusting bail. The California Attorney General’s Office is expected to ask the court to prohibit the doctor from practicing medicine in light of their ongoing investigation into Murray. Currently the court has allowed Murray to continue his work, mostly in Las Vegas, but with the order that he not be allowed to administer any sedatives. The AG’s office has decided to argue the court’s previous decision.

FOLLOW ADAM ON TWITTER

The Jackson’s family has been vocal from the beginning and you could say has always looked for the spotlight. Now that some reports have come out suggesting that Murray’s defense might include an argument that Michael Jackson killed himself, the family seems more aggressive in their attacks than ever before. Michael’s father Joe, a controversial figure himself, has lashed out at the suggestion and wants Murray to face the stiffest penalties.

Meantime, it has been reported that those in charge of the Jackson estate have signed a 200-million dollar contract with Sony Music. The deal reportedly means a new album will be released this fall with previously unreleased tracks by the one time ‘King of Pop’. The deal could reach 250 million with incentives and does not include merchandise which could mean millions more. It has also been reported that Jackson may have been as much as 400-million dollars in debt at the time of his death.

We will keep you updated on all the developments from here at the courthouse. What are your thoughts about this case?

You are worried about what man has done and is doing to this magical planet that God gave us. And I share your concern.  What is a conservative after all but one who conserves, one who is committed to protecting and holding close the things by which we live….

This is what we leave to our children. And our great moral responsibility is to leave it to them either as we found it or better than we found it.

Those 1984 words from President Reagan serve as the basis for one of the new ads in a radio campaign launched by Republicans for Environmental Protection (REP):

Sounds great, until you remember that President Reagan almost single-handedly killed America’s global leadership in renewable energy (see “Who got us in this energy mess? Start with Ronald Reagan“).  Yes, he did help save the ozone layer, as REP points out:

“With talk radio personalities constantly peddling an anti-stewardship message under the guise of conservatism, it is a good time for a reminder about President Reagan’s legacy as a good steward of our environment,” David Jenkins, REP’s vice president for government and political affairs, said.

“We especially want people to remember Reagan’s leadership in negotiating the Montreal Protocol treaty, which began the phase-out of ozone depleting chemicals and has done more to safeguard the earth’s atmosphere than any other law or treaty ever passed,” Jim DiPeso, REP’s vice president for policy and communication, said.

“Too often, Reagan is not remembered for his environmental accomplishments. The political left refuses to give him the credit that he deserves, while some on the right ignore his environmental legacy because it doesn’t fit with the image of Reagan that they cultivate to support their own agendas,” Jenkins said.

Reagan certainly deserve credit for that important achievement (see “Lest We Forget Montreal“).  He did assert leadership and overrule his advisers, as Richard Benedick, Reagan’s chief ozone negotiator, explained in a 2005 Senate hearing:

Nevertheless, after contentious international negotiations, compounded by unexpected late controversy from within the U.S. administration, a strong control treaty was signed in Montreal in September 1987.  The treaty signing attracted worldwide media attention, and it was hailed in the United States Senate as “the most significant international environmental agreement in history.”   President Reagan became the first head of state to endorse the Montreal Protocol, pronouncing it “a monumental achievement of science and diplomacy,”  and the treaty was unanimously ratified by the Senate.

Had Reagan followed the advice of his hard-core anti-environmental advisers, who knows what might’ve happened to the ozone layer?

But taking on CFCs didn’t require taking on the fossil fuel industry or promoting clean energy — two things Reagan could not abide.  Thanks the modern conservatives, the chances are essentially nonexistent that we’ll leave our children the world “either as we found it or better than we found it” (see “An introduction to global warming impacts: Hell and High Water“).

Certainly modern conservatives no longer try to conserve vital things that might matter to their children and grandchildren like fresh water or natural resources or soils or fisheries or livable climate.  And Reagan often talked a good game, as these two other REP ads make clear:

If we’ve learned any lessons during the past few decades, perhaps the most important is that preservation of our environment is not a partisan challenge; it’s common sense. Our physical health, our social happiness, and our economic well-being will be sustained only by all of us working in partnership as thoughtful, effective stewards of our natural resources.

Yet, as the LA Times reports:

Some environmentalists thought the ads were an April Fools’ joke. “They must believe, as author Gore Vidal put it, that we live in the United States of Amnesia,” said Frank O’Donnell, president of Clean Air Watch.

No matter how you look at the ads, REP appears to be wasting its money based on where they are running them:

REP’s ads began airing during the Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck shows on the following stations: WGIR (610 AM) Manchester/Nashua, WGIN (930 AM) Rochester, WQSO (96.7 FM) Portsmouth, WKBK (1290 AM) Keene, and WNTK (99.7 FM) New London

C’mon!  What’s the point of running ads during Limbaugh and Beck, who air nonstop disinformation on climate science and the clean energy bill?  You couldn’t possibly move the needle on their listeners:

• Limbaugh, Fox News suckered by Bin Laden into repeating his disinformation and message of hatred
• Glenn Beck: “There aren’t enough knives” for “dishonored” climate scientists to kill themselves.

Assuming these ads could work anywhere, they only makes sense for whatever persuadable independents and former Reagan Democrats there are in media markets that aren’t saturated with disinformation.

But what do you think?  Do these ads make sense, and if so where should they be run?

Related Posts:

• Republicans for Enviromental Protection push back on Big Oil’s attack on Lindsey Graham
• Republicans (sic) for Environmental Protection “call out those Republicans who continue to spread the false claim that capping greenhouse gas pollution will — supposedly — cost American families $3,100 every year.”
• epublicans (sic) for Environmental Protection take on Conservatives for Polluter Appeasement
• GOP-leaning voters support bipartisan action on energy

Given all the attention on the iPad this weekend, this takes us for a bit of a surprise: Apple (NSDQ: AAPL) has sent out invitations to the media today, saying that it will be holding a “sneak peek of the next generation of iPhone OS software” on April 8 at 10 a.m. at Apple’s headquarters in Cupertino, Calif. In the accompanying image, there’s a reflection of the numeral “four.”

Potentially, the event could also discuss new hardware, which has a pattern of rolling out every July. The WSJ reported recently that two new handsets may be in the works, including one for the Verizon Wireless network. Another potential subject would be mobile advertising and how Apple will integrate the recently acquired Quattro Wireless.

Report recommends upgrading the state’s information base to better user understanding of the water system.

California needs to improve its collection of water data and communication between water agencies to reduce uncertainty in its water management planning according to the 2009 state water plan, released this week.

The plan, which is updated every five years, states that, “investment in our analytical capabilities lags far behind the growing challenges facing water managers.”

The latest water strategy highlights wide data gaps and poor methods of exchanging information between different water management agencies in the state. While the quality of data collected varies by region, the plan notes the lack of broad knowledge about groundwater recharge rates, surface water flows, consumptive use by natural vegetation and soil moisture properties.

Some of these deficiencies have already been recognized by officials.

A package of water bills on the November ballot includes legislation that will require groundwater monitoring.

Meanwhile better data needs to be combined with common standards for reporting and measurement. According to the report, there are four separate statewide surveys assess urban water use, which needlessly wasting state resources and resulting in inconsistent data reporting.

To facilitate communication between state, regional and local agencies, the state is developing the Water Planning Information Exchange–a centralized Web site for water data. A trial version of the site, called the Integrated Water Resource Information System, was launched in May 2008.

For the first time, the state water plan incorporated multiple growth scenarios to get a better understanding of the range of possible water needs. One scenario projected from current trends in population growth, land use changes and conservation targets while the other two used high-growth and low-growth models.

All of the scenarios predict a decrease in agricultural use as farmland is developed by urban areas and on-farm water efficiency increases. The biggest variables, however, are climate change and unmet environmental requirements. Extreme shifts in precipitation patterns could reduce the overall water supply and require more water be left in rivers to support fish and aquatic life.

“Our new reality is one in which we must manage a resource characterized by uncertainty and vulnerability due to climate change and changing ecosystem needs,” Lester Snow, Secretary for Natural Resources, said in a press release.

The state water plan can recommend courses of action, but the 21 state agencies involved in creating the plan do not have the power to mandate actions or authorize spending.

Among the plan’s other recommendations are more efficient water use, improvements to water quality, investments in new technology and restoration of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta.

Read more from Circle of Blue about the Pacific Institute’s recommendations for improving agricultural water efficiency using existing technology.

More Americans signed contracts to buy homes in February, as the National Association of Realtors Pending Home Sales Index rose by an impressive 8.2%. That brings the index to 97.6, just below where it stood in December at 97.8. What’s caused February’s steep rise?

According to NAR, the home buyer credit’s April 30th expiration is a big part of the cause. Pending home sales are forward-looking. These sales haven’t actually been completed yet but signal more buyers in the market deciding to make a purchase. That’s why February home sales were quite weak, but pending sales were much stronger.

So what you’re likely seeing here is future demand being pulled forward by the credit, which is set to expire in November. To try to determine how much of the credit has to do with it, let’s look at what happened last fall. Here’s what the index looks like since December 2008:

As you can see, there was a steady rise until November, when it plummeted a drastic 14%. It ticked up slightly in December, but then fell again in January. The net result over that three month span was a decline of 20%. Here’s a graph looking at month-over-month change:

What we’re seeing in February should look somewhat similar to what we saw in September, as each month was two prior to the credit’s set expiration. Let’s consider the two charts together. In September, home sales rose by 4.6% — much lower than February’s big 8.2% gain. That could have something to do with how much higher the index was in August than January, 103 vs. 97.6. In February home buyers had much more ground to make up after that big 20% decline from the prior 3 month period.

The difference in the details of the home buying credit could also explain February’s giant increase. Prior to November, it only applied to first time buyers. The renewal, however, extended that and created a new, smaller credit for existing homeowners. So the pool of people who can now take advantage of the credit is much larger. Consequently, it makes sense that the demand it pulls forward would be even greater.

Like last fall, pending home sales will likely continue to rise in the months leading up to the credit’s expiration. So expect to see big numbers again in March and April. (November’s fell by so much in part because the credit was extended early in the month, so there was no longer any urgency to purchase a home for much of the month.) But if the rise is greater than it was last fall, expect to see an even deeper dive than from November through January. With both new and existing home buyers rushing to purchase through April, little demand will likely be left over for the remainder of 2009, unless the housing market’s recovery is steeper than expected.

Tomorrow is (probably) going to be Nuke Day in Washington, as the Obama administration releases its long-awaited Nuclear Posture Review. That’ll tee up Thursday’s big nuke event: the Prague signing by presidents Obama and Medvedev of the U.S.-Russia New START accord on nuclear arms reductions and limitations. If you’re interested in a post explaining what the treaty really says — that is, until its text is released — and what it all means, check out Jeffrey Lewis at Arms Control Wonk, getting technical about why you shouldn’t be so alarmed about possible bomber-borne bomb undercounts. Let’s get wonky!

Overall, the Prague Treaty [what’s he’s calling New START] actually moves the United States and Russia much closer to an actual accounting of warheads, rather than the attribution rules under START — at least for ICBMs and SLBMs. That, however, is the subject of a later post, on verification.

Bombers remain difficult to count, since their warheads are in storage and the aircraft are usually training for, or deploying on, conventional missions. Bomber rules are always weird. Kingston Rief makes all the right arguments about why we shouldn’t be too worked up about that fact.

Fundamentally, I think of bomber loadings as a secondary concern. The main goal is to get stabilizing limits on ICBMs and SLBMs, then use the bomber force to make the math work. It’s not pretty, but if you watched health care reform unfold, you don’t care about the niceties.

Remember, you can always call up a bomber pilot and tell him to turn around before he drops a nuclear bomb. You can’t recall a payload on an intercontinental ballistic missile or launched from a submarine. But since getting the New START/Prague Treaty through the Senate is going to entail driving through lots of political roadblocks, watch for the bomber count question to recur on the way to ratification.

Since it’s clear that no one wants to read about anything but the iPad today, here’s a video of a guy destroying one with a baseball bat. There’s not much to learn here, except that iPads apparently are not strong enough to withstand the repeated blows from a blunt instrument. But the video is more intriguing for the questions it raises than those it answers. For instance, what type of person waits in line for hours and plunks down $500 for an iPad, parks himself in front of a line of consumers waiting for their own iPad and then beats it to a pulp? Is this performance art? If so, what is the artist trying to say? Perhaps it’s a statement about materialism in the 21st century? Or maybe it’s just a dumb guy with lots of money who needs the attention.

—Posted by Todd Wasserman

[JURIST] An Egyptian criminal court on Sunday ordered 16 members of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) released on bail, including deputy chairman Mahmoud Ezzat and spokesperson Essam al-Erian. The members of MB, which has been banned in Egypt, were arrested in February and charged with plotting to overthrow the Egyptian government. The MB has called those charges “concocted.” The Egyptian government has often used the country’s emergency laws to arrest and indefinitely detain individuals it considered a threat to state security. This includes the MB, which the Egyptian government has accused of trying to create an Islamic theocracy through violence. There has been no indication of when the 16 individuals will be released.
In the past, Egypt has also used the emergency laws extensively against other opposition parties. In July, the trial of 26 individuals with alleged ties to Hezbollah was transferred to a court established under the emergency laws. In February 2009, a military court utilized the laws during a trial in which it sentenced opposition leader Magdy Ahmed Hussein to two years in prison. The emergency laws have been in effect continuously since the 1981 assassination of Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and were renewed most recently in May 2008. Human Rights Watch sharply criticized the renewal, saying the move showed “contempt for the rule of law.”

Finalmente ha ocurrido lo inevitable, los Red Bull han dominado todo este fin de semana en el GP de Malasia y han conseguido su primer doblete de la temporada 2010. El ganador ha sido Sebastian Vettel seguido por Mark Webber.

Por otra parte, el piloto de Mercedes Grand Prix, Nico Rosberg, ha conseguido el primer podio para dicha escudería quedando en tercera posición. Michael Schumacher tuvo que abandonar la carrera debido a una tuerca mal apretada. En lo referente a los pilotos de Ferrari, Fernando Alonso corrio toda la carrera sin embrague y aun asi, consiguió la vuelta rápida de la carrera, además de quedarse a las puertas de los puntos aunque tuvo que abandonar a falta de dos vueltas para finalizar porque su motor no resistió más por dicho problema.

Felipe Massa terminó en la séptima posición lo cuál le convierte en lider actual del campeonato seguido de Alonso. Una vez más, debemos volver a elogiar la carrera realizada por el piloto polaco Robert Kubica quién llevó a su Renault F1 hasta la cuarta posición. En Force Indian también deben estar contentos con el quinto puesto obtenido por Adrian Sutil. Por otra parte, en lo que respecta al resto de españoles en la parrilla, Pedro de la Rosa no pudo ni empezar la carrera por unos problemas con su monoplaza.

Sin embargo, Jaime Alguersuari consiguió terminar noveno lo cuál le otorga sus primeros puntos de su carrera en la Fórmula 1. Por último, debemos mencionar que Hispania Racing Team F1 consiguió llevar a sus dos monoplazas hasta la bandera de cuadros lo cuál es ya de por si un premio. A continuación os dejo con la clasificación final de este Gran Premio:

1. 5 Sebastian Vettel RBR-Renault 56 Winner 3 25
2. 6 Mark Webber RBR-Renault 56 +4.8 secs 1 18
3. 4 Nico Rosberg Mercedes GP 56 +13.5 secs 2 15
4. 11 Robert Kubica Renault 56 +18.5 secs 6 12
5. 14 Adrian Sutil Force India-Mercedes 56 +21.0 secs 4 10
6. 2 Lewis Hamilton McLaren-Mercedes 56 +23.4 secs 20 8
7. 7 Felipe Massa Ferrari 56 +27.0 secs 21 6
8. 1 Jenson Button McLaren-Mercedes 56 +37.9 secs 17 4
9. 17 Jaime Alguersuari STR-Ferrari 56 +70.6 secs 14 2
10. 10 Nico Hulkenberg Williams-Cosworth 56 +73.3 secs 5 1
11. 16 Sebastien Buemi STR-Ferrari 56 +78.9 secs 13
12. 9 Rubens Barrichello Williams-Cosworth 55 +1 Lap 7
13. 8 Fernando Alonso Ferrari 54 +2 Laps 19
14. 25 Lucas di Grassi Virgin-Cosworth 53 +3 Laps 24
15. 20 Karun Chandhok HRT-Cosworth 53 +3 Laps 22
16. 21 Bruno Senna HRT-Cosworth 52 +4 Laps 23
17. 18 Jarno Trulli Lotus-Cosworth 51 +5 Laps 18
18. 19 Heikki Kovalainen Lotus-Cosworth 46 +10 Laps 15
19. 12 Vitaly Petrov Renault 32 +24 Laps 11
20. 15 Vitantonio Liuzzi Force India-Mercedes 12 +44 Laps 10
21. 3 Michael Schumacher Mercedes GP 9 +47 Laps 8
22. 23 Kamui Kobayashi BMW Sauber-Ferrari 8 +48 Laps 9
23. 24 Timo Glock Virgin-Cosworth 2 +54 Laps 16
24. 22 Pedro De la Rosa BMW Sauber-Ferrari 0 + 56 laps 12

Related posts:

1. Jenson Button ganador del GP de Australia 2010 y carrerón de Fernando Alonso
2. Sebastian Vettel ganador del GP de Japón
3. Sebastian Vettel consigue la pole en el GP de Australia

Issues of water management caused the New Zealand Parliament to replace a 14-member elected environmental council with an appointed commission.

New Zealand’s government announced it will replace the Environment Canterbury’s, ECan, 14-member elected council with a group of up to seven government appointed commissioners, according to the Otago Daily Times.

The government had to replace the council because Canterbury’s water management was in shambles, lacking resource management, Environment Minister Nick Smith said. Former public service chief executive Margaret Bazley has been appointed to head the new commission, and up to six more commissioners may be appointed by New Zealand’s government.

Since 2006, ECan has sought more power for the council so it could impose moratoriums on areas with over-stressed water sources and delay consents for water permits.

Some of these powers will be granted to the newly appointed commissioners.

Outgoing ECan chairman Alec Neill responded to the decision saying that had the council already been appointed commissioners’ powers, he was certain issues involving water could have been more easily dealt with, according to the Otago Daily Times.

Meanwhile, the legislation was passed with some resistance. Christchurch Central’s Member of Parliament, Brendon Burns, led the Labour Party’s movement against the legislation in the debate, saying it was an assault on democracy.

“This is about the replacement of a democratic council function by executive fiat,” Burns said during the third reading debate on the bill, reports TVNZ. “We haven’t even had a flicker of democratic process here with this bill rammed through under urgency.”

“All the power rests with the Minister for the Environment and he says ‘trust me, I will look after Canterbury’s interests’–Well, I don’t trust him.”

New Zealand’s Green Party also opposes replacing the council,The New Zealand Herald reports.

During debate over the bill, the Green Party pointed out that New Zealand’s Agriculture Minister, David Carter, has a farm in the area under ECan management. The Greens co-leader, Russen Norman, said the bill could ease the process and construction of a proposed dam on the Hurunui River, and financially benefit Carter as a result.

Carter said that Norman’s concern was outrageous and irrelevant since he had consent to irrigate his property from the Hurunui River, which would not be altered if the proposed dam went through.

Sources:the Otago Daily Times, The New Zealand Herald and TVNZ

Sick of that iPhone and interested in switching to T-Mobile?  It’s the perfect time to do so, as the nation’s fourth largest wireless carrier is offering a trade-in credit ranging from $100 to $350 (depending on the condition and model) to be used towards the HTC HD2. The offer is only available through the phone, non-corporate dealers, and the B2B channels.  Your iPhone must be in working condition, but think of it this way – if you were to get the full $350 credit, it would pay for the device and most of the AT&T early termination fee.

The promotion ends on May 19th, so be sure to take advantage of the deal if you’re interested (assuming they have the HD2 in stock)!

Via BGR