Kaz Hirai to become Sony Computer Entertainment Chairman, leave Andrew House with tough CEO gig
June 29, 2011 No Comment
When you’ve had to deal out as many public apologies as Sony has had to perform over its protracted PSN hacking saga , the typical expectation is that someone somewhere will be getting fired or “reshuffled” into a new post. No firings at PlayStation headquarters, however our old pal Kaz Hirai is getting a new position as Sony Computer Entertainment Chairman, with Andrew House succeeding him in the CEO hot seat. Mr. House was previously Sony’s PlayStation chief in Europe, so he’s simply stepping up to be responsible for the company’s global operations, but Kaz’s new duties are less clearly defined. Both changes will go into effect on September 1st, a day after current Chairman Akira Sato retires, giving both Kaz and Andrew a little time to get accustomed to their new(ish) surroundings before tackling Sony’s massively important PS Vita launch at the tail end of the year. Kaz Hirai to become Sony Computer Entertainment Chairman, leave Andrew House with tough CEO gig originally appeared on Engadget on Wed, 29 Jun 2011 04:47:00 EDT. Please see our terms for use of feeds . Permalink
Continue reading …The debt-ceiling drama is getting very tedious, and some of the op-eds penned by writers such as Eugene Robinson are especially annoying. Matt Browner Hamlin debunks him pretty easily in his post, “That’s not a compromise.” The bipartisan fetish in the D.C. Beltway is getting worse by the minute. They are panicking more than Wall Street, so even Robinson starts writing garbage. Why do the Villagers allow Republicans to get away with the negotiating practice of “it’s either my way or the highway” tactics? Paul Krugman simply writes: So, here’s where we are on the debt limit discussions : Democrats have agreed to large spending cuts, but are holding out for doing something about a rule that lets businesses value their inventory at less than they bought it for in order to lower their tax burden, a loophole that lets hedge-fund managers count their income as capital gains and pay a 15 percent marginal tax rate, the tax treatment of private jets, oil and gas subsidies, and a limit on itemized deductions for the wealthy. And Republicans walked out. Think about it. There’s a significant chance that failing to raise the debt limit could provoke a renewed financial crisis — and Republicans would rather take that chance than allow a reduction in tax breaks on corporate jets. What this says to me is that Obama cannot, must not, concede here. If he does, he’s signaling that the GOP can extract even the most outrageous demands; he’s setting himself up for endless blackmail. A line has to be drawn somewhere; it should have been drawn last fall; but to concede now would effectively mean the end of the presidency. After the debt ceiling there’s the 2012 budget talks coming. What will the Democrats give up next if they allow Republicans to carve them up on the debt ceiling when they know it must be raised, or if it’s not, then unconscionable harm will come to the economy of the U.S.? I thought this article was a joke, but maybe not : For their part, Obama and Reid appear prepared to reach much higher, putting substantial Medicare savings on the table if Republicans would accept added revenues. With the House GOP leadership in New York, all of Monday’s White House maneuvering was Senate-centric. But Obama’s hope is that Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), with whom he met privately last week, will be intrigued by a bolder package that might also help neutralize the Medicare issue now hurting the GOP among elderly voters Why would the Dems even consider giving Republicans cover on the Medicare issue? mcjoan writes: Maybe Reid has already decided they can’t defend the Dem Senate majority, so what the hell, give in now and maybe get something in return down the road from Republicans. Because that has already worked out so well for him. It’s hard to say what Obama is thinking. But “substantial Medicare savings,” beyond what we know is already on the table, can only mean benefit and provider cuts. Which is giving up not just a big chunk of this critical program for seniors and the disabled, but all of the ground gained against House Republicans for voting for Ryan’s disastrous budget. Nobody knows what they are thinking, but unless the unemployment rate drops significantly, Obama will have a tough time selling himself to the American people if they give up on seniors by cutting benefits to either medicaid, Medicare or Social Security even if Michele Bachmann is the GOP candidate. Democrats not standing up and fighting for longstanding Democratic positions on our social safety net will only lead to ruin.
Continue reading …It was with gladness in our hearts that all of us at Blue America celebrated the state of New York legalizing gay marriage this past week-end. It was a welcome reminder that even in this era of Tea Parties and economic malaise, human progress cannot be stopped. Imagine if we had a national government with enough fighters for working families to make progress on all fronts, from civil rights to economic justice to ending our useless expensive wars. Imagine if we had more leaders like Raul Grijalva, Keith Ellison and Donna Edwards to press for that agenda. Yesterday, longtime progressive congresswoman Lynn Woolsey announced her retirement from the Congress after a long and illustrious career. And Blue America endorsee and longtime political activist and author Norman Solomon stands ready and able to carry on the progressive tradition of that district and join the above list of progressive leaders. “We’re gaining the kind of traction that a grassroots campaign needs in order to win,” Solomon says, “the groundswell of support is very encouraging.” Indeed it is. We need congressional representatives who understand that we are no longer able to afford open ended military adventures and corrupt political boondoggles and Norman has been fighting to end them his entire life.These issues are no longer matters of abstract ideology– they are necessary and pragmatic approaches to the problems of our time. We need people like Norman Solomon in congress to lead the way. And please help Norman with a donation if you can. The good news is that it looks as though we aren’t the only progressives who are enthusiastic about him– the campaign has managed to collect $100,000 already from small donors. But he is not a corporate funded Democrat and will need our help to compete. Howie writes today (all the way from Asia!): Yesterday Norman penned a guest Op-E d for the Marin Independent Journal that presents a lot of insight into what kind of congressman he’d be– and into why Blue America is so committed to his candidacy. I bet this is what you wish YOUR congressmember and senator– not to mention our president– was saying about the dangers of nuclear energy… and what to do about it. But they’re not. It’s why it’s so crucial that we need real leaders like Norman Solomon, not just someone who will probably vote well in the House. Several decades ago, three expert nuclear engineers told a congressional panel why they decided to quit: “We could no longer justify devoting our life energies to the continued development and expansion of nuclear fission power– a system we believe to be so dangerous that it now threatens the very existence of life on this planet.” The Joint Committee on Atomic Energy heard that testimony in 1977, when the conventional wisdom was still hailing “the peaceful atom” as a flawless marvel. During the same year, solid information convinced me to move from concern to action against nuclear power. By the time the 1979 accident at the Three Mile Island nuclear power plant came close to rendering much of central Pennsylvania uninhabitable, I was nearly two years into full-time anti-nuclear work that included public education, civic activism and nonviolent direct action. Given what was at stake, I didn’t mind spending a month in jail for civil disobedience. More than 30 years later, the ongoing disaster at Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi plant underscores the grim realities of nuclear power, ranging from catastrophic reactor accidents to highly radioactive waste that will remain deadly for many thousands of years. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Energy Department have been avidly promoting nuclear power for decades. Periodic calls for more “studies” have kicked the radioactive can down the road. I reject the notion that we should wait for such nuclear-enthralled agencies to tell us whether nuclear power is an acceptable risk for Californians. As the director of the National Citizens Hearings for Radiation Victims in 1980, I learned a lot about patterns of official enabling of the nuclear industry– with awful results for human health and the environment. Similar patterns persist in this country. In contrast, the government of Germany has seen the light. At the end of last month, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced a reversal of policy– moving to shut down nuclear power instead of trying to expand it. The decision to immediately close eight German nuclear power plants and shut the rest by 2022 came in a country that had been getting 23 percent of its electricity from nukes. Here in California, we’re less reliant on this Faustian technology, getting just 15 percent of our electricity from nuclear power. The state has a lot of excess generating capacity from other sources, but far better choices for the environment are within our grasp. Don’t you think that’s a point of view that deserves to have representation in the congress? Is it too much to ask that we have at least a few liberal voices willing to speak out on issues like nuclear power and endless wars in the US Congress? We don’t think so. Please consider helping Norman bring this kind of thinking to Washington by contribution to his campaign through ActBlue . Norman summed his platform up in one powerful sentence today saying is he’s elected to Congress, he “will insist that we need to bring our troops and tax dollars home– that we need healthcare not warfare– that we must resist corporate power– that caving in to Wall Street and polluters and enemies of civil liberties is unacceptable.” Please welcome Norman Solomon back to Blue America.
Continue reading …
enlarge Bob Somerby has been running an excellent series over the last week examining how the “greed is good” mentality has taken over American values over the past 40 or so years. Toward the end of his piece last Friday, he made pertinent point : As income inequality has grown, one side’s heralds have worked very hard to pimp a load of supporting ideology. The other side’s heralds have largely slumbered, dozed, burbled and snored. We haven’t developed the language and the ideation with which we can approach those voters who are currently found outside our own tribe. Nor have we developed the forums in which we can approach such people with some hope of success. We prefer to spend our time insulting those who aren’t in our own tribe. This is lazy, self-indulgent behavior. Beyond that, it just isn’t smart. What’s wrong with the societal pattern described in Whoriskey’s piece? If athletes and singers can haul in big swag, why can’t CEOs and “financial professionals?” The career liberal world has made little effort to fight back against that forty-year trend—a trend which has indeed driven along by “one half-baked study after another.” I think there’s definitely something to this. Liberals often assume that most of the public sees surging economic inequality as a profound and unqualified negative, but the reality is the public often has no idea just how unequal America has become. And what’s more, the public has been fed the idea we should celebrate when the rich get richer because it means they’ll just trickle more wealth down on the rest of us unworthy serfs. So in response to Bob’s challenge, I’d like to make the case for why greed is bad that could transcend the standard left-right divide and appeal to people who might disagree with me on a host of other issues. Let’s give this a go, shall we? Before delving too far into this, I’d like to give my general take on money. To me, money is a lot like sex and cupcakes. Meaning that while they’re all things that everyone wants to have in one form or another, it’s entirely possible to overindulge in all three. The key difference is, we don’t stigmatize greedy people the same way we stigmatize people who are cads (i.e., Tiger Woods and Anthony Weiner) or people who are overweight (i.e., Michael Moore). In fact, when we read about somebody who makes an obscene amount of money we normally think, “Well good for them, I hope I can make it like that some day too!” The most classic example was the Wall Street Journal’s interview with one of the homeowners whose foreclosure made hedge fund manager John Paulson into a gazaillinaire. Y’see, even though Paulson was literally profiting from the poor shlub’s misery, he just couldn’t find it in his heart to be upset : In 2006, Mr. Booket got hit by a car while riding a motorcycle from a late-night party, was unable to find much work and couldn’t pay the bank. In October 2008, he lost the house to foreclosure and plans to move out by next week. He says he bears no grudge against Mr. Paulson and Goldman. “The man came up with a scheme to get rich, and he did it,” says Mr. Booket, who had refinanced his mortgage just months before the accident. “So more power to him.” Mr. Booket is presumably a good guy. But he’s also clearly bought into the idea that anything rich people do to make money is good for the rest of us too. Here, then, is my concise breakdown of the two biggest reasons why greed and inequality are bad: First: When people at the top are greedy, workers don’t get their just rewards . For a long time in this country, there was a very close relationship between productivity growth and wage growth. Increased productivity is a good thing because it means we’ve come up with new ways to make more stuff with less effort. Now take a look at this chart: enlarge As you can see, productivity started rising more rapidly than wages in the 1970s and has only accelerated since . This means, roughly speaking, that workers are now producing more but getting paid less. How in God’s name is this possible? Well, technology and globalization are definitely part of the answer. But I think there’s also something to be said for the fact that we’ve developed a real Randian ” Cult of the Rock Star CEO ” culture that values the output of the person at the top of the chain as key to creating wealth for everyone else (and if this sounds like economic fascism to you, well, you’ve got a point). And look: Steve Jobs is a brilliant businessman, but he’s not the one engineering the Mac Book Air, he’s not the one refining the next-generation iPhone operating system and he’s certainly not the one in the Chinese manufacturing plant putting all of these “magical” devices together. In other words, Steve Jobs is good at what he does but he has a whole lot of help that shouldn’t be overlooked or underpaid. Note that I’m not saying Jobs doesn’t deserve to be well-off for the work he puts into Apple. What I am saying is that as Jobs’ wealth increases, so should the wealth of everyone else who works at the company. For the past 40 years in America, that just hasn’t been happening. Second: Greed can turn you into a dumbass. There’s this weird myth out there that the more money a Rock Star CEO has, the more money he’ll invest into his business, thus creating more jobs for everyone. While this is certainly true in some cases, I don’t think it’s at all true across the board. And what’s more, I think having too much money can give you a feeling of invincibility that can lead you to do stupid things. I know I make fun of Charlie Sheen a lot but I think he’s a really good example of the dumb crap people can get themselves into when they have too much damn money. Let’s recall what Charlie said earlier this year when asked why he spent so much money on prostitutes: Asked why he’s “paid for sex” in the past, Sheen responded, “Because I had millions to blow. I ran out of things to buy.” “I had millions to blow. I ran out of things to buy.” That, in essence, was one of the problems we had in the lead-up to the housing bubble. Toward the end of that debauched period, lenders simply weren’t producing enough mortgages to satisfy the Wall Street Securitization Machine that had spent the past decade piling more and more leverage onto banks’ balance books. The solution, it turns out, was to create “synthetic” mortgage securities that were little more than bets on other mortgages that the banks didn’t even own. Because a combination of low interest rates, tax loopholes and financial chicanery had given banks a whole ass-ton of money to play with, they had at that point literally run out of crappy mortgages to buy. So instead of, say, doing something more useful with it they decided to double down and create more crappy mortgages out of thin air . The brighter libertarians out there will concede that, yes, having too much money can make you stupid but eventually the market will make you pay for your mistakes and you’ll never get hired again. Capitalism works! Well, sure, if you ignore all the misery and poverty that financial collapses cause, I guess the system is great. And let’s not mention that being thoroughly incompetent at your job is no obstacle to future employment if you’ve got good connections — for Christ’s sake, the World Bank has just appointed former Lehman Brothers chief risk officer Madelyn Antoncic as its damn treasurer ! This is like baseball hiring Barry Bonds to be in charge of overseeing its drug-testing operation! So that’s my best crack at detailing in a (hopefully) amusing fashion why greed is really not a good thing that should be encouraged. Gordon Gekko wouldn’t approve, but what does his fictional ass know that I don’t?
Continue reading …
It took Maria Sharapova exactly one hour to beat Dominika Cibulkova 6-1, 6-1 to set up a semi-final aginst Sabine Lisicki Preamble Fear not, just like at Centre Court there is now a roof on Guardian Towers so I will be able to bring you full game-by-game coverage of this enticing match despite the Day After Tomorrow-style downpour that has engulfed London this afternoon. It’s a tough slog on the women’s tennis circuit. While their male counterparts get a day off, sitting at home or in their hotel quaffing copious amounts of energy drinks in the belief that they actually do any good. Meanwhile, the women barely have time for a cup of tea as they are back in action today in the quarter-finals just 24 houurs after their fourth-round matches. One of the most intriguing of the day’s matches is between fifth-seed Maria Sharapova and 24th-seed Dominika Cibulkova, who beat world No1 Caroline Wozniacki on Monday. Given that Serena and venus Williams are on the plance home Sharapova is now firm favourite to win a title she last won in 2004. Incidentally if Sharapova can go all the way she will join an illustrious group to have won the title more than once. That seven-year gap between titles would put Sharapova behind only Evonne Goolagong Cawley (1971 and 1980) as an Open era player with the longest gap between Wimbledon titles. But first she has to defeat Cibulkova. And then the winner or Marion Bartoli and Sabine Lisicki. And then whoever she may meet in Saturday’s final. So let’s not get ahead of ourselves. These two have met four time previosuly, with the record at two wins apiece. The last time they played was in Madrid earlier this year where Cibulkova won 7-5, 6-4. Celebrity watch … No Wills and Kate today but Rory McIlroy is here. Ever wondered what famous sportspeople talk about when they meet? Here’s a snapshot of the conversation between McIlroy and Andy Murray when they met at the practice grounds earlier on. Murray to McIlroy, who is wearing a sharp suit: “You look good.” McIlroy: “Yeah, well, you know.” It’s like something from an Evelyn Waugh novel out there. Another insight into the world of super-rich sports people … Rory McIlroy has just turned the tennis court in his house into a five-a-side football pitch. Decisions, decisions. First set: Cibulkova* 1-0 Sharapova If the first point of this game is anything to go by we could be here for a while. There are gasps as Cibulkova takes a tumble which allows Sharapova to take the point after a 22-stroke rally. The Slovakian clambers to her feet and recovers to hold serve. “Does anyone know if women tennis players do beep tests?” wonders gary Naylor. “I was very impressed by La Lisicki last Thursday who looked very strong indeed in defeating Li Na 8-6 in the third and she lasted much better than Ms Bartoli today. Of course shotmaking matters, but I’m surprised that so many female players seem to fade after 90 minutes or so of a match. Women don’t when running the marathon.” Answers to the usual address. First set: Cibulkova 1-1 Sharapova* Sharapova has a clear height advantage – she’s 6ft 2in facing Cibulkova who is just 5ft 3in – and that tells in her first service game which she wins easily losing just one point courtesy of an unforced error. First set: Cibulkova* 1-2 Sharapova First break of the match and it’s fairly comfortable for Sharapova. A real pattern for the game is already emerging. Cibulkova lacks the serve to cause Sharapova too many problems and is aiming to do her damage with powerful ground strokes. They’re not powerful enough at the moment and the No5 seed is returning with interest. First set: Cibulkova 1-3 Sharapova* Sharapova wins to love and it may not be jumping the gun to say that Cibulkova is in a bit of trouble. There’s a clear gulf between the two at the moment. If you are a fan of groaning in tennis then this is the match for you. The roof is closed so the acoustics are making every grunt echo through the arena. It wouldn’t sound any better in the Royal Opera House. Trickier to play tennis there though. First set: Cibulkova* 1-4 Sharapova The problem with Cibulkova’s strategy is that Sharapova is looking stronger than her in a rally as well as the serve. Cibulkova takes a 30-love lead by Sharapova won’t led it slide and storms back – with one point-winning backhand particularly devastating – and Cibulkova flounders and loses the game with a double-fault. First set: Cibulkova 1-5 Sharapova* Cibulkova moves into a position where she has two break points – they’re almost handed to her by Sharapova who seems so determined to diominate that she is looking to blast her opponent into submission when at times, some subtelty might be the best approach. Needless to say Sharapova wins the next four points and takes the game. After watching Sharapova beat laura Robson I made her my choice to win Wimbledon. Then, for some unknown reason, I went and put money on Caroline Wozniacki. I’m regretting my actions now. Not just in terms of the bet – pretty much all my life-choices have been dubious. Maria Sharapova wins the first set 6-1. The Slovakian gets appears to get a foothold in the game taking a 40-love lead on her service before Sharapova comes storming back to take the game and the set. The final point was loose and wild from Cibulkova who needs to sort herself out in the next couple of minutes otherwise this is going to be over very, very shortly indeed. This is brilliant from Sharapova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 0-1 Sharapova* Sharapova holds service with ease. On BBC they reckon Cibulkova needs to find a Plan B. I reckon she’s searching for Plan X or Y at this stage. They’re about the start the first of the other quarter-finals on Court One. At least they think they are but we know that a great big rain cloud is heading straight for them. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 0-2 Sharapova It’s a good game from Cibulkova – the best she’s played in this match – but it’s still not enough. In a game that lasted eight minutes Sharapova seemed to be able to reach all areas of the court and return in devastating fashion. Four times Sharapova has break point and it’s an escape act too many fir Cibulkova who has not one a game since the opening game of the match. “Come on,” Sharapova shouts after the winning point. She may have been directing it at Cibulkova. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-2 Sharapova* Cibulkova has broken Sharapova. There has been a definite improvement from the Slovakian in the last couple of game and that will give her some belief that she might be able to force her way back into this game. She can’t, of course, but it’s no harm if she thinks she can for a little bit at least. “Marvellous to see that Sharipova has mastered the art of playing tennis while juggling the moon in one hand (see pic),” writes Mihai Cucos. “Has she become a Hindu goddess?” Well if she has she needs to get back focusing on her game. there’s a time and a place for Hindu goddesses but Centre Court on a rainy Tuesday is not it. Although it would be a lot better than Cliff Richard I suppose. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-3 Sharapova And Sharapova breaks straight back. Oh dear. All that hope gone in a few shoddy serves. Second set: Cibulkova 1-6, 1-4 Sharapova* Sharapova serves – Cubulkova attempts to pound it back but either overhits it or Sharapova smashes it back into an unreachable area of the court. Sharapova serves – ace. That’s the stopry of that game and of the match. Second set: Cibulkova* 1-6, 1-5 Sharapova Maria Sharapova will serve for the match and a place in the semi-final after breaking Cibulkova without conceding a point. This is devastating. Oh dear! I said that already, didn’t I? Maria Sharapova beats Dominika Cibulkova 6-1, 6-1 Sharapova opens the game with a double-fault. Take that complete and utter dominance! She then makes an unforced error at 15-15. She’s havin’ a laugh. Not really. Sharapova produces the shot of the match to make it 30-30, Cibulkova shows her best to reach break-point but then it’s ace-unplayable serve-forehand whack and out and Maria Sharaopova is in the semi-final in the most impressive manner. This title is hers to lose. There is no question of that. Final thoughts One hour is all it took for Maria Sharapova to set up a semi-final aginst the German wildcard Sabine Lisicki. “This is a great chance for me to take it a step further,” says Sharapova. You can say that again. Dominika Cibulkova may have thought she was in with a chance after beating world No1 Caroline Wozniacki. She may have just been destroyed by this year’s Wimbledon champion. That’s it for me. Thanks for your emails. The weather has cleared up and Paolo Bandini can keep you abreast of all the rest of the day’s action as it happens in our live blog . Bye. Wimbledon 2011 Maria Sharapova Wimbledon Tennis Evan Fanning guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …New Mexico Wildfire Forces Evacuations, Closes Government Nuclear Lab In Los Alamos
June 28, 2011 No Comment
LOS ALAMOS, N.M. — Thousands of residents calmly fled Monday from the mesa-top town that’s home to the Los Alamos nuclear laboratory, ahead of an approaching wildfire that sent up towering plumes of smoke, rained down ash and sparked a spot fire on lab property where scientists 50 years ago conducted underground tests of radioactive explosives. Los Alamos National Laboratory officials said that the spot fire was soon contained and no contamination was released. They also assured that radioactive materials stored in various spots elsewhere on the sprawling lab were safe from flames. The wildfire, which began Sunday, had destroyed 30 structures south and west of Los Alamos by early Monday and forced the closure of the lab while stirring memories of a devastating blaze in May 2000 that destroyed hundreds of homes and buildings. “The hair on the back of your neck goes up,” Los Alamos County fire chief Doug Tucker said of first seeing the fire in the Santa Fe National Forest on Sunday. “I saw that plume and I thought, `Oh my God here we go again.’” Tucker said the current blaze – which grew Monday to roughly 50,000 acres, or 78 square miles – was the most active fire he had seen in his career. By midafternoon, it had jumped a highway and burned an acre of land on the outskirts of the lab’s 36-square mile complex. The fire scorched a section of what is known as the Tech Area, 49, which was used in the early 1960s for a series of underground tests with high explosives and radioactive materials. Lab officials said the fire was safely extinguished. Lab spokesman Kevin Roark said environmental specialists from the lab were mobilized and monitoring air quality on Monday, but that the main concern was smoke. The anti-nuclear watchdog group Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, however, said the fire appeared to be about 3 1/2 miles from a dumpsite where as many as 30,000 55-gallon drums of plutonium-contaminated waste were stored in fabric tents above ground. The group said the drums were awaiting transport to a low-level radiation dump site in southern New Mexico. Lab spokesman Steve Sandoval declined to confirm that there were any such drums currently on the property. He acknowledged that low-level waste is at times put in drums and regularly taken from the lab to the Waste Isolation Pilot Project site in Carlsbad. Sandoval said the fire was “quite a bit away” from that storage area. But he could not say what would happen if drums containing such waste were to burn. “Unfortunately, I cannot answer that question other than to say that the material is well protected. And the lab – knowing that it works with hazardous and nuclear materials – takes great pains to make sure it is protected and locked in concrete steel vaults. And the fire poses very little threat to them.” Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., who was visiting evacuees at the Santa Claran Hotel Casino in Espanola, said “there’s no doubt” the lab stores a variety of hazardous and radioactive materials that “you don’t want to escape in the atmosphere.” But he said he was confident lab and state environmental officials had monitoring systems in place to “evaluate exactly what we’re seeing here.” Traffic on Trinity Drive, one of the main roads out of Los Alamos, was bumper-to-bumper Monday afternoon as residents followed orders to leave. Authorities said about 2,500 of the town’s roughly 12,000 residents left under an earlier voluntary evacuation. “We’re just hoping for the best,” Vivian Levy, a resident since the 1970s, said as she packed her car and her animals – again. “Last time, I just walked out of my house and said goodbye, and that it was going to be OK,” she said before breaking down in tears. “I’m doing the same thing this time. It’s going to be OK. I’m prepared to say goodbye.” Sam Kendericks said he knew the blaze was going to be bad when he first saw the plume Sunday. “I was going to the hardware store and I did a U-turn as soon as I saw the plume come over the mountain. I told my wife to start packing. We were here 10 years ago. We had 20 minutes last time. So this time we’re ready,” he said. The fire has the potential to double or triple in size, Tucker said, and firefighters had no idea which direction the 60 mph-plus winds would take it. “We are preparing for the fire to go in any direction,” Tucker said. On Monday afternoon, the flames were just across the road from the southern edge of the famed northern New Mexico lab, where scientists developed the first atomic bomb during World War II. The lab activated its emergency operations center overnight and cut natural gas to some areas overnight as a precaution. In 2009, the U.S. Department of Energy’s inspector general issued a report that said Los Alamos County firefighters weren’t sufficiently trained to handle the unique fires they could face with hazardous or radioactive materials at LANL. Lab and fire department officials at the time said the report focused too much on past problems and not enough on what had been done to resolve them. Some problems also were noted in previous reports. On Monday, lab and fire officials said they were confident that if the flames reached lab property they would be able to protect its sensitive facilities. “We’re in a much better place than we were 11 years ago,” said Rich Marquez, executive director of the lab, noting the lab has thinned out potential fire hazards and has enacted a number of emergency protocols. “Our day to day activity is about appropriate stewardship of those resources. We take precautions just in our normal existence and the way we plan, the way we manage materials like that. We assume the worst.” The lab, which employs about 15,000 people, covers more than 36 square miles and includes about 2,000 buildings at nearly four dozen sites or “technical areas.” Those include research facilities as well as waste disposal sites. Some lab facilities, including the administration building, are in the community of Los Alamos while others are several miles away from the town. Greg Mello, with the anti-nuclear watchdog Los Alamos Study Group, said the group doesn’t have enough information “to formulate any views on safety at this point.” “It is important to remind ourselves that the site has natural hazards … and Murphy’s Law is still about the best enforced law in the state,” he said. The blaze also was threatening Frijoles Canyon, which is home to a number of sacred Native American archaeological sites. Also threatened, Tucker said, was the recently restored Bandelier National Monument. At least 30 structures had burned south of Los Alamos overnight, but Tucker said it was unclear exactly how many of those were homes. The blaze started on private land about 12 miles southwest of Los Alamos and quickly grew. Flames and smoke could be seen from the outskirts of Albuquerque, about 80 miles away. A cause wasn’t immediately known. The fire was eerily similar to one of the most destructive fires in New Mexico history. That fire, the Cerro Grande, burned some 47,000 acres – 73 square miles – in May 2000 and caused more than $1 billion in property damage. About 400 homes and 100 buildings on lab property were destroyed in that fire. That blaze also raised concerns about toxic runoff and radioactive smoke, although lab officials said no contaminants were released during it. Another fire continued to burn uncontrolled on the other side of Santa Fe. The Pacheco fire near Santa Fe has burned about 9,900 acres and is 10 percent contained, according to the Forest Service. And about 125 acres were burning south of Albuquerque along the Rio Grande bosque. Meanwhile, the biggest blaze in Arizona history was 82 percent contained after burning through 538,000 acres in the White Mountains in northeast Arizona. The fire started May 29 and has destroyed 32 homes. It’s believed to have been caused by a campfire. And in Colorado, about 100 firefighters are battling a wildfire that broke out in a canyon northwest of Boulder. ___ Associated Press writers Jeri Clausing in Albuquerque, Barry Massey in Santa Fe and P. Solomon Banda in Espanola contributed to this report.
Continue reading …With Chris Wallace’s Help, ABC and NBC Paint Bachmann as Fact-Challenged ‘Flake’
June 28, 2011 No Comment
All three broadcast network evening newscasts awarded full stories Monday night to Michele Bachmann’s presidential campaign announcement, with ABC and NBC unable to resist pouncing on Chris Wallace’s “are you a flake?” question to frame their stories. ABC’s Jonathan Karl highlighted how she’s “been accused of being loose with the facts, saying, for example, that the President's last trip to India was costing taxpayers $200 million a day. That's why Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace says he asked her” the “flake” question. On NBC, Kelly O’Donnell also played the Wallace clip before focusing on how Bachmann “has been embarrassed by a string of factual errors , like placing the battles of Lexington and Concord in the wrong state. She missed the mark again in our interview, bringing up an unrelated and incorrect claim about her hometown.” (That would be about John Wayne’s birthplace.) O’Donnell soon turned petty, shall we say, in blaming Bachmann for something that better falls in the category of liberal pettiness: When Bachmann left the stage here, her campaign played the Tom Petty hit song American Girl. Turns out Petty isn't pleased. His manager says they will ask the Bachmann campaign not to use that song. They also asked George W. Bush not to use any of his music, but Hillary Clinton did use American Girl throughout her campaign in 2008. In his World News piece, Karl showed Bachmann point to her spin as she touted her “titanium spine,” which prompted Karl to try to undercut her enthusiasm: “Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant, said that you have a better chance of landing on Jupiter than becoming President.” Karl also couldn’t let go of Bachmann’s 2008 remark that Barack Obama “might have un-American views.” CBS’s Jan Crawford managed to avoid anything about factual errors and even refrained from playing the Wallace “flake” question as she noted Bachmann’s “early rise in the polls suggest she's striking a chord with people who are sick of Washington.” From ABC’s World News: JONATHAN KARL: Michele Bachmann is taking Iowa by storm. Making it official with the kind of feistiness that has made her a Tea Party hero. MICHELE BACHMANN: We cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. KARL: Once considered a fringe candidate, Bachmann starts as the front-runner in first-in-the-nation caucus state Iowa. Bachmann has something of a home-field advantage in Iowa. She grew up right in this house in downtown Waterloo, lived here with her three brothers until she was 12 years old. Bachmann brags about being an uncompromising conservative. She told us she has a titanium spine. KARL TO BACHMANN: Now, is there a suggestion some of those other Republicans running don’t exactly have titanium spines? BACHMANN: All I know is I have one. I have a titanium spine. I am bold, I've taken on not only the opposing party but I've taken on my own party many times as well because I stand for principle. KARL, TO BACHMANN: Mike Murphy, a Republican consultant, said that you have a better chance of landing on Jupiter than becoming President. BACHMANN: I must have missed that. I never heard that. KARL: Now you're here, you're tied for the lead in Iowa. I mean, do you see this happening? BACHMANN: Sure I see it happening, absolutely, I see it happening. KARL: Her brand of conservative politics has often generated controversy, as when she said this about President Obama. BACHMANN ON MSNBC’S HARDBALL IN 2008: I’m very concerned that he might have un-American views. KARL: She's also been accused of being loose with the facts, saying, for example, that the President's last trip to India was costing taxpayers $200 million a day. That's why Fox News Sunday anchor Chris Wallace says he asked her this: CHRIS WALLACE, JUNE 26 FOX NEWS SUNDAY : Are you a flake? BACHMANN ON THAT SHOW: Well, I think that would be insulting, to say something like that. KARL: Wallace later apologized. But does Bachmann accept? We asked as one of her aides cut off our interview. Do you accept his apology? He apologized. BACHMANN: Those are the small issues. I'm focused on the big ones. KARL: Bachmann is now off to New Hampshire, a place where she has a steeper climb and, unlike Iowa, no hometown roots. NBC Nightly News: KELLY O’DONNELL: …The 55-year-old Minnesota Congresswoman, known for her fire brand conservative style- MICHELE BACHMANNL We cannot afford four more years of Barack Obama. O’DONNELL: -clearly trying to broaden her appeal beyond social conservatives. Bachmann emphasized that she0was once a Democrat. BACHMANN: Our problems don't have an identity of party. They are problems that were created by both parties. O’DONNELL: Bachmann attracts plenty of criticism and it can get personal. She was asked this on Sunday. CHRIS WALLACE ON FOX NEWS SUNDAY : Are you a flake? BACHMANN, ON THAT SHOW: Well I think that would be insulting to say something like that because I'm a serious person. O’DONNELL: Chris Wallace later apologized to viewers. Bachmann, who has recently begun stressing her background as a tax attorney and small business owner, has been embarrassed by a string of factual errors, like placing the battles of Lexington and Concord in the wrong state. She missed the mark again in our interview, bringing up an unrelated and incorrect claim about her hometown. BACHMANN: Another American who was born in Waterloo, Iowa was John Wayne. O’DONNELL: Iowans say it's widely known here that actor John Wayne was born about 150 miles away in Winterset. Bachmann told me she expects greater scrutiny and needs to be more careful. BACHMANN: I will make mistakes, it will happen. But I will tell you, to the very best of my ability I'll try and get everything right that is coming out of my mouth. O’DONNELL: And details matter. When Bachmann left the stage here, her campaign played the Tom Petty hit song American Girl . Turns out Petty isn't pleased. His manager says they will ask the Bachmann campaign not to use that song. They also asked George W. Bush not to use any of his music, but Hillary Clinton did use American Girl throughout her campaign in 2008.
Continue reading …
Higher education white paper promises to give students more power to ensure they get their money’s worth, but Labour brands reforms a ‘complete shambles’ University courses with a poor track record of employment will be “named and shamed” under government proposals to give students a clearer choice of degree and curb the costs of tuition fee loans. Measures to open up the sector and give more power to students to ensure they get their money’s worth are reforms tied to the government’s plans to triple tuition fees to £9,000 from 2012, due to be outlined in the government’s long-awaited white paper on higher education on Tuesday. In what is seen as the most radical shakeup of the higher education system in decades, the white paper is expected to contain measures to allow popular universities to take in any student who gains at least two A grades and a B at A-level, allowing these institutions to grow. Universities charging low fees, including higher education colleges, could also be told that they can increase their numbers in a move that will be seen as a way to encourage institutions to lower their fees. The proposals were criticised by Labour and the National Union of Students, who warned that the reforms would see the quality of degree courses suffer and leave students open to “market chaos” in the higher education sector. The government also wants to see courses that are not valued by employers either scrapped or overhauled. Ministers will ask for the publication of detailed information about the employment and earning outcomes of specific degrees, to limit losses to the taxpayer from students who fail to repay their loans. At present, two-thirds of universities are seeking to charge the maximum £9,000 fee from next year, despite wide variations in employability. Universities will be required to publish comparable data on teaching hours and accommodation costs, and to account for how fee income is spent. In a round of broadcast interviews given ahead of the publication of the white paper, David Willetts, the universities minister, said the government was looking for a “transformation” in the amount of information students receive. “There are some courses that are far better at preparing young people for the world of work than others. At the moment, the student finds it very hard to get that information,” he told BBC Breakfast. “In future, they are going to be able to see ‘if I do biological sciences at one university, I have got a much better chance of a job in a pharmaceutical company than if I do biological sciences at a different university’. Yes, all that information should be out there and we are insisting for the first time that it should be available for prospective students.” Willetts said he wanted to see education institutions compete both on fees, but also on the “quality of the experience” for students as the government dismantles the system of quotas on student places. He told BBC Radio 4′s Today programme that UK universities should dispense with the public sector “mindset”. “They are not, they do not belong to the public sector. What they do receive is a large amount of public money … what we will be saying today is if there are alternative providers that come in they may be FE colleges, of course should have the opportunity of offering higher education but they should be regulated on the same basis as everyone else and I think there’s a great opportunity here. “Existing universities have been over-regulated so we’re going to cut back the burden of regulation The ones outside the system often have not been regulated at all.” John Denham, the shadow business secretary, branded the reforms a “complete shambles” and accused the government of “making it up as it goes along”. “Whatever we get this afternoon wasn’t any part of the proposals that were put to the House of Commons last December,” Denham told Sky News. “Remember, the government cut higher education funding by 80%, which is why we have this huge increase in fees. They then said very few universities would charge £9,000 – most of them want to charge £9,000. “So what’s happening here is that they’re trying to drive down the cost of some courses, but I fear very much at the expense of quality of higher education and the stability of some universities and we will do our students no favours if we give them a cut-price, low-quality degree when what they need is a really good quality higher education.” Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said the reforms would leave the majority of students facing “complete market chaos”. “To use proposals for more information as a justification for lifting the cap on fees to £9,000 is outrageous and will not fool students and their families. It’s the price, rather than educational standards, that will have tripled,” said Porter. “Ministers are at risk of creating stability for the perceived best but complete chaos for the rest. The vast majority of university entrants, who don’t get the very best grades, will be treated to complete market chaos and real uncertainty about their universities and courses.” The white paper comes as research revealed that graduates are facing record levels of competition for jobs, with more than 80 fighting for every position, research suggests. Employers are now receiving 83 applications on average for each job – almost double the numbers of two years ago (49), and nearly treble compared with three years ago (31) according to the Association of Graduate Recruiters. Higher education Students Student finance David Willetts University funding Jeevan Vasagar Jessica Shepherd Hélène Mulholland guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …So the news on the debt ceiling talks is filled with two issues today, one is suddenly defense spending was put on the table by Republicans. As President Obama prepares to meet Monday with Senate leaders to try to restart talks about the swollen national debt, some Republicans see a potential path to compromise: significant cuts in military spending. Senior GOP lawmakers and leadership aides said it would be far easier to build support for a debt-reduction package that cuts the Pentagon budget — a key Democratic demand — than one that raises revenue by tinkering with the tax code. Last week, Republicans walked out of talks led by Vice President Biden, insisting that the White House take tax increases off the table. {} In listening sessions with their rank and file, House Republican leaders said they have found a surprising willingness to consider defense cuts that would have been unthinkable five years ago, when they last controlled the House. While the sessions have sparked heated debate on many issues, Rep. Peter Roskam (Ill.), the deputy GOP whip, said there are few lawmakers left who view the Pentagon budget as sacrosanct. The second bit of news is that Mitch McConnell has declared that there will be no new taxes included in budget talks . Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell on Monday renewed his call to take tax increases off the table in the debt-limit talks between congressional leaders and the Obama administration. Republicans “want to finally get our economy growing again at a pace that will lead to significant job growth,” McConnell wrote in an op-ed published on CNN.com , hours before he is to huddle with President Obama and Vice President Biden at the White House to discuss the debt ceiling. First of all, you can’t have negotiations between two party’s if the one, the GOP refuses to include tax increases of any kind in the mix. That’s not negotiating, that’s hostage taking. I don’t believe for a second any proposed cuts to military spending will be anything more than some paper clips and staplers in the Pentagon, but it does make for some juicy talking points they can use on TV. See, we’re willing to cut Defense, but Democrats won’t cut medicare and Social Security. We’re serious, they’re not. Conservatives understand that the beltway bipartisan fetish is always running high in DC and they will help them make the case that this is a significant shift for the GOP. As talking points go, Atrios says: I give it about 2 days before Republicans start screeching about how Democrats want to cut defense money while our heroes are in harms way, blah blah blah Now the WH is already cutting like crazy, but Eric Cantor wants more. The White House has offered nearly $1 trillion in cuts to domestic agencies over the next decade and $300 billion more from security agencies. But House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) pressed for as much as $1.7 trillion in cuts. And he wanted an overall cap on spending that would leave the door open to slashing the entire sum from domestic programs — such as education, food safety, health research and criminal justice — when lawmakers draft spending bills next spring. “Everything is on the table,” Cantor said in an interview afterward. But the decision on how much to cut defense “belongs in the appropriations process.” White House budget director Jack Lew objected, and the meeting grew heated. Democrats said they could never support a package that targets only social programs and extracts no pain from the military, big business or the wealthy. Every “cut” is on the table, but not revenue increasers. This is all kabuki and the debt ceiling isn’t the same type of game they played with as shutting down our own government was. But if Democrats use meaningless military cuts to justify massive cuts in education, food safety, health research and criminal justice as some kumbaya moment, then this will be not a deal, but a ritual sacrifice. Digby: Good cuts, bad cuts: Seriously, the defense budget is a very logical place to look for savings. It’s been off limits to any kind of serious oversight for decades, particularly the one just past. I have no doubt that significant savings can be found there. If they can come up with some cuts in obsolete programs that don’t hurt any of their prized constituencies and donors too badly, a deal could potentially be made that would give President Obama an argument to take to his base as his liberal accomplishment in this “deal”. But keep in mind that when they make the argument that we can’t raise taxes because the economy is too fragile, the economic logic of that is the same as cutting spending. So it isn’t about the economy — it’s about shrinking government. No matter how worthy a goal cutting the Pentagon is on the merits, it’s not a liberal economic policy. In fact, none of this is an economic policy at all — it’s a ritual sacrifice. We’ve feared for a long time that Medicaid is something that might end up on the chopping block to help complete some Grand Bargain which would excite the Villagers for sure. Progressives been warning our readers about this for a long time. mcjoan writes: White House Medicaid proposal would likely force states to cut aid Drew Westin tries to explain to the Democrats how they can win in 2012: Three Ways Democrats Could Choose to Lose in 2012, and What They Can Do to Avoid It “If Democrats think that the average senior who votes will be able to distinguish competing claims about which party’s Medicare cuts will cut them the deepest, they are deeply mistaken. We will end up with a he-said/she-said about which party “really” cares about grandma’s health, and the media will offer voters guidance such as, “Democrats say their cuts will have less impact on seniors, whereas Republicans say their plan will give seniors more choices.” Andrea Mitchell was talking to Cillizza today at the end of her show and mentioned that if Republicans won’t raise taxes then how can they really negotiate? Chris agreed. I found that interesting because maybe in some tiny way a piece of truth is slipping through the DC wall because the never raising taxes mantra has been considered a principled position by Republicans when in reality it’s all about making the rich, richer off the backs of the working class.
Continue reading …
She swam naked in its pool every morning and entertained Hollywood royalty there. Now the ailing movie star’s house is up for sale – exacerbating a bitter family feud Zsa Zsa Gabor is selling her gated Bel Air mansion, and as you would expect from a Hollywood legend, this is no ordinary listing. The former movie star may be ailing but the anticipated $15m (£9.4m) sale has intensified a long-running family feud and turned into something of a drama. The decision to sell the property was
Continue reading …