Moore, Okla. ? With her son holding her elbow, Colleen Arvin walked up her driveway to what was left of her house for 40 years.
A link to this page will be included in your message.
Source: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130522/NATION/305220361/1020/rss09
looper New Years Eve New Year Outback Bowl washington redskins Carly Rae Jepsen Rose Bowl 2013
Garvin Jabusch, Green Alpha Advisors
May 15, 2013
?
Securities of fossil fuels firms, as an economic sector, may soon be on the decline.
Predictions as to when oil and gas will become a smaller part of the investment society makes into its total energy mix, in favor of renewables such as solar, wind and ocean energies, vary, ranging from 2060 on the long side (this prediction from oil industry powerhouse Shell) to 2030 or even sooner on the shorter side (as reported by Bloomberg). But so far, markets appear to be mispricing the risk this presents to fossil fuels companies, and their share prices for now remain high. In our opinion, it?s not too soon to consider divesting from fossil fuels while one might still recover significant value.
Coal, oil, and natural gas, though, are the main sources of energy that have gotten civilization this far (at least since the late 1700s, or the entire industrial revolution), so why are many expecting them to so quickly diminish in importance??
Mostly because of recent innovation and renewables? efficiency and cost gains. Our ?next economy? thesis and methods of portfolio construction assert that energy and material resources we need to host an indefinitely thriving economy exist in more than sufficient quantities (particularly energy), if we would only collect and use them in smart and efficient ways. The innovations required to put world economies on a long term sustainable path largely exist today. For example, the various forms of solar energy collection have become so efficient over the last 20 years that all of civilization?s energy requirements could presently be met by covering 0.3 percent of the earth?s land surface with solar panels and concentrated solar thermal systems. Our models insist that through promoting true sustainability solutions in materials and energy, we can indeed maintain a healthy, thriving biosphere, all while growing our economies and improving standards of living everywhere, for everyone.
This in mind, we put together 10 primary reasons why fossil fuels investments, in next economy terms and indeed in general economic terms, no longer appear to be the attractive source of risk-adjusted returns they have historically been.
Fossil fuels are economically becoming subprime because:
1. ? Fossil fuels have the capacity to threaten basic systems.
Warming and its sequelae such as severe weather, droughts, floods, more frequent and intense storms and attendant uncertainties all undermine our basic economic foundations. A recent World Bank report conceded that ?There is ? no certainty that adaptation to a 4? C world is possible,? referring to a global average temperature increase of 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit from pre-industrial times that is considered likely by scientists over the next few decades if fossil fuels? use is not soon severely limited. To rephrase what this means, the traditionally conservative World Bank believes that human economies may not be able to adapt to a world that has on average warmed four degrees Celsius or more. Note that the global temperature has risen nearly one degree Fahrenheit since 1975.
Millions of pages have been written on the underlying reason for the unsustainability of fossil fuels. Their power to disrupt basic climate and therefore world societies is vast, complicated and is a topic best left to our best specialists. I suggest to the interested reader the works of more qualified practitioners including Dr. James Hansen, Lester Brown and Bill McKibben.
2. ? Fossil fuel assets present abandonment risk.
Fossil fuels companies are now confronted by the risk that many of the still-in-the-ground assets they count on their balance sheets and/or in their future revenue projections may never be recovered or realized. As this becomes the apparent, their asset valuations and revenue guidance may be revealed as currently far too high, and the values of their companies and stocks overvalued. Citing abandonment risk, Bloomberg recently reported that ?Investors in carbon-intensive business could see $6 trillion wasted as policies limiting global warming stop them from exploiting their coal, oil and gas reserves.? ?Carbon Tracker reports that, ?Between 60-80% of coal, oil and gas reserves of publicly listed companies are ?unburnable? if the world is to have a chance of not exceeding global warming of 2?C.?
The press down under is reporting that ?Australian based analysts at Citigroup says fossil fuel reserves in Australia face significant value destruction in a carbon constrained world, with the value of thermal coal reserves likely to be slashed dramatically if governments get serious about climate action?fossil fuel asset owners could be best advised to dig the resource up as quickly as they can.?
Over at HSBC they recently pushed up a similar report, encompassing a global scale, essentially saying we can?t count all the fossil fuel reserves on firms? balance sheets because we cannot burn them all and therefore ?Oil and gas?majors, including, BP, Shell and Statoil, could face a loss in market value of up to 60 percent should the international community stick to its agreed emission reduction targets.? (As reported by GreenBiz.com.) I don?t believe most policymakers in governments around the world currently have the wherewithal to honor their various carbon reduction treaties, but I also don?t believe that matters. Peak oil demand is upon us because the alternatives are simply becoming far more competitive and because awareness of fossil fuels? dangers is rapidly advancing.
Securities of fossil fuels firms, as an economic sector, may soon be on the decline.
What Bloomberg, Citi and HSBC are saying, in sum, is that infinite growth of a known harmful asset ??in this case an asset with the ability to disrupt climate and civilization ??must come to an end, and soon.? And shares of the firms exploiting this asset are at risk.
3. ??Renewables are becoming too competitive for fossil fuels.
Forbes has quoted Rick Needham, director of energy and sustainability at Google saying, ?While fossil-based prices are on a cost curve that goes up, renewable prices are on this march downward.? That pretty much sums it up. In just the last five years, solar photovoltaic module prices have fallen 80 percent and wind turbines have become 29 percent less expensive. Moreover, after the initial investment, renewables such as wind and solar, having no cost of fuel, will prove far too competitive for fossil fuels no matter how cheap those may appear to be. Cheap fuel is still more than free fuel.
One of the first major investors to recognize this was Warren Buffett. Via his MidAmerican Energy subsidiary, he has quietly made Berkshire-Hathaway America?s single largest owner of both solar and wind electrical power generation capacity. Patrick Goodman, Buffett?s CFO of MidAmerican said simply ?we believe renewables is the better investment right now.? Warren Buffet, who believes that once a good investment has been identified it?s time to ?back up the truck,? is showing no signs of giving up his leader status on solar, having just begun construction on the ?largest solar plant in the world.?
All this is happening now, today, with today?s technologies and today?s economics. That the smart money already sees renewable energies as more competitive long term than fossil fuels is obvious. The ?smart money,? by the way means individuals as well as institutions. Solar crowdfunding pioneer Mosaic in April of this year sold out the first tranche of $100 million in solar project investments to Californians in just hours.
Further technological advances aren?t required to make renewables competitive, but advances are occurring. Fossil fuels will represent only a small percentage of all energy investments in just a few years for a simple reason: few will want to invest in the less profitable technologies of the past.
4. ? Fossil fuels firms are beginning to have to pay for their externalities.
Fossil fuels companies have never had to pay for their economic externalities such as pollution, warming, health effects and contaminated water and farmland. There are signs that this is beginning to change, and firms will increasingly be liable for damages in the tens if not hundreds of billions. The highest profile example is BP?s Deepwater Horizon spill, the worst oil spill in U.S. history. BP has already been required to set up a US$20 billion fund to cover cleanup and damage costs, and perhaps far more significantly, is facing potentially ?tens of billions? in additional damage payments pending the outcome of what the Financial Times is (in a dedicated section) calling the ?trial of the century,? now underway in Louisiana. The FT is also reporting that BP is facing an additional 2,200 lawsuits related to the spill.
Even if BP should prevail in most or even all of these suits, the massive costs of these litigations will start to become a drag on the firms? traditionally easy profitability. Newsweek has a longform piece covering many details including additional BP liabilities such as: ?that BP lied about the amount of oil it discharged into the gulf is already established. Lying to Congress about that was one of 14 felonies to which BP pleaded guilty last year in a legal settlement with the Justice Department that included a $4.5 billion fine, the largest fine ever levied against a corporation in the U.S.? BP?s continuing potential liabilities from this one incident, including ?uncapped class-action settlements with private plaintiffs? and ?civil charges brought by the Justice Department? and ?a gross negligence finding [that] could nearly quadruple the civil damages owed by BP under the Clean Water Act to $21 billion,? show the danger to shareholders. Any representative of an asset class carrying this kind of risk can justifiably be labeled a subprime investment.
Other firms facing liability issues surrounding the dangerous nature of their products include Chevron, which has had to abandon Ecuador altogether to avoid paying a $US19 billion settlement there in a ?nightmare case? that threatens to drag on around the world as Ecuador seeks payment via Chevron?s assets in other nations.
5. ? Fossil fuels are likely to have to face carbon taxes.
There will be carbon taxes in many if not most countries that will directly impact the profit margins of fossil fuels firms. The New York Times op-ed framed the argument like this:
Securities of fossil fuels firms, as an economic sector, may soon be on the decline.
?Substituting a carbon tax for some of our current taxes ? on payroll, on investment, on businesses and on workers ? is a no-brainer. Why tax good things when you can tax bad things, like emissions? The idea has support from economists across the political spectrum, from Arthur B. Laffer and?N. Gregory Mankiw on the right to Peter Orszag and?Joseph E. Stiglitz?on the left. That?s because economists know that a carbon tax swap can reduce the economic drag created by our current tax system and increase long-run growth by nudging the economy away from consumption and borrowing and toward saving and investment.?
A carbon tax is good for everyone but fossil fuels companies, who will see their profits reduced (or attempt to pass the costs on to consumers, reducing demand for their products further). So far, several nations, provinces and individual municipalities have implemented a carbon tax, and many others have carbon trading schemes (the Carbon Tax Center is a good resource for keeping up with these). Carbon taxes can raise revenues, shrink deficits, and move tax burden away from citizens, all while slowing the worst effects of warming. Look for their implementations to continue to spread.
6. ? Fossil fuels will soon face diminishing governmental subsidies and benefits.
Fossil fuels have received as much as half a trillion dollars per year in subsidies from the U.S. alone. To the extent that austerity or desires to balance budgets, combined with legislation to limit greenhouse gas emissions, reduce the scale of this windfall, the seemingly easy profitability of these companies will be undermined. This point, as well as point five above, is more fully developed in point seven.
7. ? There is growing global institutional belief that transition to renewables solves climate AND economy.
We?ve already seen the dire warnings about warming coming from the World Bank, and discussed the positions of Bloomberg, Citi and HSBC. These institutions are far from alone. The International Monetary Fund, in calling for ?Energy Subsidy Reform,? recently calculated that between directly lowered prices, tax breaks, and the failure to properly price carbon, the world subsidized fossil fuel use by over $1.9 trillion in 2011 ? or eight percent of global government revenues, representing a huge drag on economies. The United States taxpayer is fossil fuels? largest benefactor at $502 billion in 2011. China came in second at $279 billion, and Russia was third at $116 billion. For perspective, that $502 billion is just over 3% of the US economy, currently being given away to big fossil fuels companies.
The IMF concluded that the ?link between subsidies, consumption of energy, and climate change has added a new dimension to the debate on energy subsidies.? ?The IMF?s solution to both economic and climate risk (as reported by The Hill) is in two simple parts: ?end fossil fuel subsidies and tax carbon.?? The solution to both climate and economy is worldwide conversion from fossil fuels to renewables.
8.?? Fossil fuels are the ultimate non-circular: they?re completely consumed upon first use, so more primary source extraction is required.
As I mentioned above, to get global economies on an indefinitely sustainable foundation, we need to make far more efficient use not only of energies but also of raw materials. Fossil fuels represent both raw resources and energy sources, and they represent the worst of both. Smart, efficient use of materials means reusing nearly everything at the end of its lifecycle to repurpose into something else we need. For a thriving, sustainable long-term economy, we need to get close to perfect recycling of resources of all kinds so we can minimize our depletist impacts on earth and avoid the basic environmental degradations that go along with those.
This approach of course excludes fossil fuels and other resources that are consumed entirely on their first use. Raw materials can keep economies growing for a long time if we preferentially mine our huge stockpiles of already extracted resources and minimize extraction from primary, geological sources. But fossil fuels, unlike materials used to make solar panels and wind turbines, don?t work like that. Since they are consumed entirely on their first use, reuse is impossible and we have to literally go back to the well for more. This means ever more greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere, ever more degrading of the local environments where extraction takes place, ever more risk of accidents, and the possibility of eventually exhausting the resource completely (although on this last point I personally believe we will ??for the reasons presented here ??reach peak demand far before we fully exhaust fossil fuel reserves).
9. ??Distributed renewable energy grid is more secure than traditional hub and spoke systems, even those powered by domestic fossil fuels.
FERC Chairman Jon Wellinghoff has recently said, ?It wouldn?t take that much to take the bulk of the power system down. If you took down the transformers and the substations so they?re out permanently, we could be out for a long, long time,? and ?A more distributed system is much more resilient?Millions of distributed generators can?t be taken down at once.?
This is common sense. And short of equipping every home and business with its own diesel or natural gas generator ??which of course would be disastrous for local areas? air quality ??fossil fuels can never offer anything like the kind of security and resilience that distributed renewables like rooftop solar can.?
10. ??Renewables will counter fossil fuels? endless ?boom and bust? cycles
As I?ve posted before, the price of oil and other fossil fuels has, at least since World War II, been the main control knob permitting expansion and causing contraction of world economies. It?s widely known that 10 of the last 11 major recessions were preceded by peaks in oil prices. Rising oil prices are inflationary, adding to the costs of almost everything from transportation to fertilizers to plastics, and they therefore cause demand for all these affected items to become depressed, slowing economic production. ?Renewables, relying as they do on free fuels like sunlight, present no such economic pressures, and as they become an ever larger percentage of our energy mix, fossil fuels? huge GDP drag will begin to disappear.
Conclusion
What then is the future for fossil fuels versus renewables? Fossil fuels have already begun to rapidly lose market share. In 2012,?most new electricity?generating capacity brought online in the United States was from renewables, and in January and now March 2013, all new U.S. electrical generating capacity?was provided by renewables. So where is this headed?
Image courtesy BNEF
Bloomberg New energy Finance (BNEF) has calculated that ?70 percent of new power generation capacity added between 2012 and 2030 will be from renewable technologies (including large hydro). Only 25 percent will be in the form of coal, gas or oil.? BNEF CEO Michael Liebreich has said "I believe we're in a phase of change where renewables are going to take the sting out of growth in energy demand," which goes to our thesis that we can both lighten our ecological footprint and increase our standards of living.
So add Bloomberg to the growing group of financial analysts?warning that fossil fuel investments are poised to become a bad bet.?
Citi bank, in its note about the Australian coal industry, went as far as to warn investors that it will be difficult to extract value from their still-in-the-ground resources as action on climate change advances, stating, "If the unburnable carbon scenario does occur, it is difficult to see how the value of fossil fuel reserves can be maintained, so we see few options for risk mitigation."
Well, with all due respect to Citi, I can think of one option: we, like Buffett and Google, can instead invest in civilization?s non-carbon sources of power. As the IMF pointed out, the solution to both climate and economy is worldwide conversion from fossil fuels to renewables. This massive conversion program will lead to powerful economic growth, less economic drag from energy costs, higher revenue for treasuries, and strong employment drivers.
If we fear for the future, it is paradoxical to attempt to mitigate risks by remaining invested in fossil fuels. What we do now will bring about the future for better or worse. If we?re to emerge from our 19th century energy system, it must be us, now, today, who set that emergence in motion. Leave fossil fuels for those who prefer to look backwards.
Source: http://lightbeamenergy.com/news/2013/5/21/the-economic-case-for-divesting-from-fossil-fuels.html
Romnesia Tagg Romney Bosses Day Cabin Fever 2 Alexis Wright Zumba binder full of women Microsoft Surface
NEW YORK (AP) ? Steven Soderbergh is working on a new currency.
In his Chelsea studio, among various film posters and piles of moviemaking mementos, he has a few paintings in progress, including a new, livelier, "more Hendrix" version of a U.S. dollar bill. It's only one of the many artistic endeavors he bounces between now that he's begun his long-predicted hiatus from filmmaking.
On Tuesday, he will bring his Liberace film, "Behind the Candelabra," to the Cannes Film Festival, where it will compete for the same Palme d'Or he won 24 years ago for his first film, "Sex, Lies and Videotape."
Soderbergh has said this ? a $23 million HBO movie starring Michael Douglas as the flamboyant pianist and Matt Damon as his lover, Scott Thorson, airing Sunday in the U.S. ? will be his last film, at least for now. The 50 year-old's career in film ? 26 protean features including "Out of Sight," ''Traffic" and the "Ocean's" franchise ? will effectively conclude in Cannes, the same place it was internationally launched.
"It's not often you get the opportunity to arrange that kind of symmetry," Soderbergh says. "It's funny to think about how long ago that was."
Shortly after Soderbergh began tweeting a sparse novella and gave a remarkable speech at the San Francisco Film Festival in which he vented his frustration at Hollywood studios, he sat for a lengthy interview as he steps away from movies. "In theory," he says, "I'm finished."
AP: When you look back on your filmography, what do you think of it?
Soderbergh: It feels like one big movie to me, like chapters of a novel. There's continuity. There's evolution. I shot "Sex, Lies" in 35 days and "Candelabra" in 30 days. I'm more economical. I'd probably make them all a few minutes shorter. Shorter is always better.
AP: The break from movies you've long talked about is now effectively underway. How's it going?
Soderbergh: It's been a little quieter for me. My wanting to consider what my relationship to movies is can sort of happen while I'm doing this other stuff. . It's hard for me to do nothing.
AP: You've recently tweeted a novella, "Glue," and given a wide-ranging speech about how Hollywood could function better.
Soderbergh: It was kind of an opportunity to organize in one place a lot of thing I've either said in interviews or bars. It was just a way for me to structure it all, get it out and close the door on it. . As I walked out the door, I felt there were some things I wanted to memorialize about what I've seen.
AP: It felt like a goodbye.
Soderbergh: I spend a lot of time trying to figure out how I can optimize my process as a filmmaker, and I haven't seen a lot of effort expended on the part of the studios to optimize their process. And I don't understand it. . The biggest stumbling block to this paradigm being revised is the cost of putting a mainstream movie out. It's truly the tail that's wagging the dog. It's influencing every decision at every level. I can't believe ? unless there's some aspect of the relationship between the studios and the theater owners that I'm not aware of ? that this is the only way it can be done.
AP: Is your stepping back motivated equally by industry frustration and by your desire to grow in some new way as a filmmaker?
Soderbergh: Yeah, absolutely, it's a combination of a lot of different things. Some of them have to do with the way the business is working now, some of them have to do with me just wanting a break from the social aspect of it. The fact that you're the target for tens of thousands of questions. It's a very intense process and you can feel worn down after a while. And then my own feelings just about the grammar of it, the language of it: Is there some other way to transmit and release information that isn't so prescribed? It's quite possible that I could end up making something that is designed more to be seen in a museum than a movie theater.
AP: Was there something you were bumping up against that made you feel like you weren't evolving?
Soderbergh: It felt like: I need to tear everything down and start over. I've been thinking about that and thinking about what it might be. I want to take advantage of what people bring to a movie when they watch a movie. The fact that we're so image driven and that we've been watching images since we were infants, and we have associations that are carried with them. I want to figure out a way to take advantage of that, so that I'm sort of using those associations as fuel for what I want to do. I think that's going to require me taking some time to think about what those associations are, how I can use them, how I can build off of them, how I can subvert them. And see if there's some way that I can reverse engineer a narrative in which you, by the end of it, understand everything that happened but you're not quite sure how or why you did.
AP: It seems your search for a new kind of narrative is connected to what you've said about the confusing, fractured nature of life today.
Soderbergh: Especially in this country now, it's really hard not to look around and go: What the hell is going on? Is it possible to get anything done? Is the center of this country going to hold or is it just going to be completely marginalized by extremists on every side of every issue? I don't know. I'm alarmed.
AP: The private sexuality of "Behind the Candelabra" bears some similarities to "Sex, Lies."
Soderbergh: It was a great way to express my appreciation for a kind of movie I've watched my whole life but never got to make, which is kind of a melodrama. I looked at as being in line with all the Douglas Sirk movies and "Sunset Blvd." and "All About Eve" and "Valley of the Dolls." . It was interesting to look around and wonder when I'll be doing this again.
AP: What will you miss the most?
Soderbergh: Editing.
AP: What's surprising about you stepping away from filmmaking is that you seem to relish the process so much, shooting and editing your own films.
Soderbergh: I have a plan. I have an idea of how it can go, and I'm willing to throw it all out at a moment's notice to go somewhere else with it. I expect to discover things. I expect accidents. I expect something that somebody suggests or says will move me in another direction. I'm creating an environment in order to conjure that kind of things. I want my experience of making something to be fluid and to be surprising. I want it to come alive in front of me.
AP: Some filmmakers spend years carefully constructing the films they hope will be masterpieces. That kind of approach has never been appealing to you?
Soderbergh: No, mostly because it makes my work worse. I discovered early on, the more time I had to mull something over, the worse it got ? or the more insular it got, the more introspective, the more self-conscious. I needed to treat it like a sport.
AP: HBO picked up "Candelabra" after no studio would take it, and you're currently contemplating several TV projects. Are you excited about television?
Soderbergh: Very. Very. There's a lot of great stuff being made. You can go narrow and deep, and I like that. And this is all David Chase. He single-handedly rebuilt the landscape. Anything that's on now that's any good is standing on his shoulders. I don't hear anybody talking about movies the way they talk about TV right now. . Knowing that I can't swim upstream forever, it seems to me that if I want to work, that I need to move to a medium in which the way I like to do things is viewed as a positive and not a negative.
___
Follow AP Entertainment Writer Jake Coyle on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/jake_coyle
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/ap-interview-soderbergh-quitting-movies-111400818.html
earth day 2012 jon jones rashad evans ufc jones vs evans watergate pregnant man outside lands 2012 lineup beloved
By Andrew M. Seaman
NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Men who get an older and less costly form of radiation after their cancerous prostates are removed fare just as well as men who get a new and expensive type of radiation, according to a new study.
"What we demonstrate is that both (therapies) are very safe and effective after prostatectomy, and patients should feel very confident receiving either technology," said Dr. Ronald Chen, the study's senior author from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Conformal radiotherapy (CRT) delivers radiation over a large area to kill cancer cells. Intensity-modulated radiotherapy (IMRT), on the other hand, directs radiation to a smaller area to protect surrounding tissue.
IMRT, which is newer and the predominant form of radiation for prostate cancer patients, also costs about $10,000 more than CRT.
"The way we design the radiation for the IMRT is more sophisticated and takes more time," Chen said.
He and his colleagues write in JAMA Internal Medicine that new prostate cancer treatment technologies increases costs by about $350 million each year - mostly driven by IMRT.
But researchers questioned whether the newer, more expensive and focused radiation led to better outcomes in prostate cancer patients.
Last year, Chen and his colleagues found IMRT was tied to a lower risk of stomach problems and better cancer control in men who were using it as a first-line treatment for early-stage prostate cancer, compared to men who got CRT (see Reuters Health article of April 17, 2012 here: http://reut.rs/13G0OMI.)
For the new study, the researchers used data on 457 IMRT patients and 557 CRT patients who already had their prostates removed and were receiving radiation to prevent or treat reoccurrences between 2002 and 2007. All were on Medicare, the government-run health insurance for the elderly and disabled.
The patients were followed through 2009 and the researchers found that the IMRT patients experienced just as many complications as those receiving CRT. Those included stomach problems, incontinence and erectile dysfunction.
What's more, those receiving CRT didn't end up needing more cancer treatments, compared to IMRT patients.
PRICE IMPLICATIONS
Chen told Reuters Health that they may not have seen a difference between the two types of radiation because doctors tend to use lower doses of radiation after prostate surgery and IMRT may not give as much as an advantage.
Or, he said prostate surgery can cause urinary and sexual side effects in patients and would diminish the difference between the types of radiation.
Dr. Matthew Cooperberg, a urologist from the University of California, San Francisco, who wrote an editorial accompanying the new study, told Reuters Health the new study also shows how fast the more expensive treatment was adopted, despite many head-to-head comparisons.
In the new study, researchers found no patients were getting IMRT in 2000, but it was the treatment for over 80 percent of patients by 2009.
"I think one of the points is that no one is going with the less-expensive option. IMRT has become the standard," he said.
SOURCE: http://bit.ly/MbBLb9 JAMA Internal Medicine, online May 20, 2013.
Source: http://news.yahoo.com/pricey-radiation-no-better-post-prostatectomy-study-202532359.html
breeders cup Mitch Lucker Red Cross CMA Awards 2012 election day Electoral College map nyc marathon
FILE - In this Friday, May 17, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at Ellicott Dredges in Baltimore. President Barack Obama is delivering the commencement address at Morehouse College on Sunday, May 19, 2013, the historically black, all-male institution that counts Martin Luther King Jr. among its alumni. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
FILE - In this Friday, May 17, 2013, file photo, President Barack Obama speaks at Ellicott Dredges in Baltimore. President Barack Obama is delivering the commencement address at Morehouse College on Sunday, May 19, 2013, the historically black, all-male institution that counts Martin Luther King Jr. among its alumni. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin)
ATLANTA (AP) ? President Barack Obama is telling graduates of Morehouse College to take the power of their example ? as black men graduating from college ? and use it to improve people's lives.
He's asking those headed to law school to think about defending the poor, and those destined for medical school to consider treating people in communities without access to health care.
And he asked those with MBAs in their near future to think about how to put people to work or turn around a struggling neighborhood.
The president said graduates should inspire those who look up to them.
About 500 students were receiving undergraduate degrees from the historically black, all-male institution in Atlanta, becoming "Morehouse Men."
After the speech, Obama was to attend a Democratic Senate fundraiser, also in Atlanta.
Associated Pressnew nfl uniforms derbyshire the matrix oceans 11 ferris state hockey mary poppins john derbyshire
Ed Carpenter is a rare breed in Indycar today being an owner/driver in a series dominated by multicar teams and rich team owners. This weekend, however, he shut out the field and won the pole for the Indianapolis 500.
A testament to what Carpenter had to overcome to win this pole was who he was up against in the Fast Nine. Between five Andretti Autosport entries and three Team Penske entries, he was up against the juggernauts in IndyCar and the odds did not appear to be in his favor. When it was go time, he delivered and beat them all for the pole.
So can Carpenter win the 500? I would say the odds are definitely in his favor. For one thing: the ovals are his strong suit. Of his 32 career top tens, 30 of those have been on ovals. He won at Kentucky in 2011 after finishing second the last 2 years, which included getting beat right at the line by Ryan Briscoe in 2009, driving for a relatively new Fisher Hartman Racing team beating Dario Franchitti: no easy task there. Very similar to what he did this past weekend to win the pole for the Indy 500, David beating Goliath.
He also knows how to win a 500 mile race. At last years season finale at Fontana, Carpenter dominated the race, leading the most laps and passed Dario Franchitti on the last lap to win the race. A 500 mile race in of itself is a challenge to win, and since he has won one already, he's proven he has what it takes. At the Indy 500 last year, he came from the back to the front and was running inside the top 5 towards the end of the race before a late spin took him out of contention.
So, long story short, can he win the race? Yes he can. Will he, we shall have to wait until Sunday to know for sure.
?
Follow Josh Farmer on Twitter: www.twitter.com/jfarmer7710
"; var coords = [-5, -72]; // display fb-bubble FloatingPrompt.embed(this, html, undefined, 'top', {fp_intersects:1, timeout_remove:2000,ignore_arrow: true, width:236, add_xy:coords, class_name: 'clear-overlay'}); });Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-farmer/can-ed-carpenter-win-the-_b_3303472.html
2012 draft colt mccoy arbor day mike adams janoris jenkins john edwards trial brandon weeden
May 20, 2013 ? Most of the animal proteins found in the meat industry waste have, until now, been underutilised. The challenge is to transform such waste into food of higher functionality and added value. Thanks to the findings of the EU funded PROSPARE project, it is possible to reuse the protein and lipid fraction of disused food, according to project co-ordinator Arnaldo Dossena, who is the head of the food science department at theUniversity of Parma, in Italy.
Up to 50% of the animal weight processed in the meat industry is discarded as left-overs and ends up composted or incinerated, despite beingrich in proteins and lipids. Turning the lipid fraction of such waste into biodiesel has proven too expensive. So the focus is now on reusing proteins. Today, only 22% is converted by the food industry into feed and barely 3% is consumed as food. The problem is that recovery methods are energy intensive. They also convert the source proteins into meals with poorer digestibility and nutrient properties as well as a low commercial value.
Thanks to a process involving enzymes to digest food, poultry left-overs such as bone and meat trimmings can be converted into proteins dubbed functional animal proteins hydrolyzates. They differ from existing protein hydrolyzates, from eggs, buttermilk, or fish already on the market in that they have a higher content of nutritionally useful amino acids. They can be used as supplements for sports diet, to help build up muscle tissue, and as additives in processed food, for example. So far, some of their properties -- namely prebiotic, antimicrobiotic, antioxidant and hypotensive -- have been demonstrated in vitro.
The technology developed under the project is now being tested by a Belgian food company, called PROLIVER. It is hoping to enhance the nutritional quality of its protein hydrolysates, already sold in dietary, health and sports food supplements. One of the project partners, Mobitek-M, which is a Russian company specialised in production of protein-enriched food stuffs, is also planning on including these products into ice-cream, under the follow-up Rosano Project. They have built a plant in the Belgorod region of the Russian Federation, which is about to start of transforming functional animal protein at a capacity of one hundred tonnes per day.
Some see a real advantage in this approach. "I think in Europe the most important part of such an approach is to reduce the impact of the [food] production on the environment," explains Vegard Segtnan, senior researcher at the Norwegian Institute of Food, Fishery and Aquaculture Nofima, located in Troms?. He also believes that there is also a market for these specialised protein products that are easily assimilated by the body for sick people, the elderly and athletes. "The materials have a one up to two years shelf life," Dossena says, "[they] can be used to increase the protein count where there is a protein deficit since they contain many free amino acids [which are therefore easily absorbed]."
These products aim to complete the gamut of protein-based products present on the market. However, there is currently no EU-wide specific regulations for them. Instead, they are approved on a case-by-case basis in individual EU countries. Protein hydrolyzates approved in national EU markets need to qualify as a specific food product category, according to Karin Verzijden, a food regulatory expert at law firm Axon lawyers, in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. For example, these products might qualify as dietary supplements. "It really depends on the emphasis that is put on their ability to be digested much quicker than regular proteins for instance," Verzijden said.
In addition to qualifying as food dietary supplement, experts disagree as to whether they might either qualify as novel foods used as food ingredients, or as additives. It partly depends on whether they were not already used for human consumption within the EU market prior to 1997, when the EU novel food regulation entered into force. Until further clarity regarding the food category these applications would be considered under by the food regulator at EU-wide level, it may be a while before they reach their potential users.
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/strange_science/~3/4YJ_YW2Ii4c/130520094846.htm
irs new york times Friends Reunion Elena Delle Donne usa today yahoo news regions
This annual event is always cool and a good "don't-miss" event for the family on Sunday.
Local museums and cultural institutions, including the Basque Museum & Cultural Center, Boise Art Museum, Boise WaterShed Environmental Education Center, Discovery Center of Idaho, Idaho Black History Museum, Idaho Botanical Garden, Idaho Historical Museum, Idaho Museum of Mining and Geology, MK Nature Center, and the Old Idaho Penitentiary, are waiving fees for the day and offering special programs.
Here's a sampling of things to check out: ? Draw real and imaginary animals inspired by artwork at the Boise Art Museum. ? Boise WaterShed Environmental Education Center invites you to try your hand at the toilet seat toss game ? and learn where to properly dispose of pollutants. Fun and prizes. ? See chemistry gone fun with the Discovery Center of Idaho, as you make your own slime to take home with you. Also, explore Newton?s 3rd law with stomp rockets you can build yourself and launch in the park. ? Dig through the compost pile from MK Nature Center to discover who is doing the work. Make a wormy craft to show what you learned. Noon to 5 p.m. at various locations. For a complete listing: boisemuseums.org.
Source: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/05/18/2581672/dont-miss-the-6th-annual-international.html
roses april fools Good April Fools Jokes Dumpster Diaper the beach Fear
In this photo taken Tuesday, May 14, 2013, Roberta Bonoff, owner of Creative Kidstuff, a toy store chain, poses at the store in St. Paul, Minn. The toy retailer based in Minneapolis, just expanded by buying a 26-year-old online and catalog toy retailer, Sensational Beginningsa . Bonoff said the owner was tired and ready to sell. (AP Photo/Jim Mone)
Baby boomers preparing for retirement are driving a surge in small business sales, as they find more and more buyers confident enough in the improving economy to expand their own businesses through acquisitions.
In the first three months of this year, the number of sales that closed jumped 56 percent from the same time in 2012, according to BizBuySell.com, an online marketplace for small businesses. Retirement was the No. 1 contributor to business sales in the fourth quarter of last year and the first quarter of 2013, according to a survey by Pepperdine University and two trade groups, the International Business Brokers Association and M&A Source.
"It was almost like a light switch went on in January," says Michael Schuster, a broker with World Business Brokers in Miami. "We started getting a lot of activity with sellers who said, ?I don?t want to go through another downturn or tough time. I want to see if I could sell my business.?"
Sales are so strong in Florida that Schuster?s brokerage is opening two more offices in the state. Three-quarters of the sellers or potential sellers that his company sees are baby boomers, most of whom don?t have family members willing to take over their businesses. Some of these owners want to sell just part of their firms, essentially taking on a partner, because they don?t want to keep carrying all the risk themselves.
Honey Rand fits the category. After 17 years of running her Tampa, Fla., public relations firm Environmental PR Group, she?s starting to think about selling. The 55-year-old wants to get away from the administrative work that goes into running a business, and focus on working with clients.
"Like most people who end up starting a business, I?m really good at the work I do and I?d love the opportunity to wallow around in it," says Rand. She?s optimistic that she?d be able to sell, because she was approached twice by prospective buyers in the last 10 years. And Rand expects that she would remain with the company for a period following a sale to help with the transition to new management ? something that many business owners do.
While she hasn?t definitely decided to sell just yet, she plans to talk to a broker soon.
"I like to think ahead, to understand the process and the things that could affect a sale or sale price. When the time comes, or if it comes, I want to be ready. I don?t want to feel like it?s a fire sale," she says.
In California, the pace of sales is more of a "slow pickup, not a huge spike," says Dave Richards, owner of Keystone Business Advisors, a brokerage in Westlake Village, Calif.
"Baby boomers are where we?re really seeing the growth. It?s pent-up demand," Richards says.
story continues below
One of those boomers is Walt Pocock. In late 2011, Pocock met with a broker to discuss possibly selling his Chino, Calif., business, Palo Verde Landscape Management Co. But he and his wife Dee, who also worked with the company, weren?t quite ready to let it go. However, selling became "something we were thinking about from then on," Pocock said.
Within a year, the 70-year-old decided he was ready to retire and Dee, 78, agreed. The difficult business climate was a factor in their decision.
"The economy had not been good and it had been a struggle and we got tired of the struggle," he said.
The put the company on the market in January, and quickly had several bidders. Pocock got his full asking price, and the deal closed April 1. Now he and his wife are looking forward to traveling around the country in their motor home.
Sellers like Pocock are going to keep the market for small businesses thriving for years to come.
"Trillions of dollars of business value are going to change hands in the next 10 to 20 years," says Bob Balaban, managing director at Headwaters MB, an investment bank based in Denver. He believes so-called ?strategic acquisitions? ? purchases by companies looking to expand ? will be a key factor in that trend. In a tight economy, companies looking to grow feel that it would take years to build up their businesses.
"They have to do acquisitions to continue to grow and grow quickly," Balaban says.
Buyers appear to be ready to step up and are looking for companies that will be good fit with their existing operations. Health-care related businesses like medical billing firms, pharmacies and even medical and dental practices are particularly in demand, says Keystone?s Richards. He?s seeing less interest in restaurants and retailers, industries where profit margins are thinner and where many companies are still struggling. Schuster, the Miami broker, says he sees people who were waiting for the economy to pick up, and they?ve decided that business is good enough for them to take the plunge.
"There?s a lot of people who were sitting the sidelines and could not do that anymore ? the election?s over and things are getting better," he says.
Sellers are benefiting from this trend because buyers are willing to pay more money if a deal will quickly get them into the markets they want to serve, says Mike Carter, CEO of BizEquity, a company that helps businesses calculate their sales price.
"For a growth company, we?re seeing them getting almost 15 percent more than what they were getting four years ago (during the recession)," he says.
Next Page >Copyright 2013 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Source: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/money/56321348-79/business-says-businesses-sales.html.csp
drew brees sandusky Sam Champion Hulk Hogan sex tape orioles Sarah Jones chicago marathon
By RICK FREEMAN
AP Sports Writer
Associated Press Sports
updated 3:33 p.m. ET May 19, 2013
NEW YORK (AP) - Against the Toronto Blue Jays this season, the only thing that has stopped the Yankees was a day full of rain.
The Yankees would have been trying to make it seven in a row against the Blue Jays on Sunday, but rain began to fall in the late morning with no signs of letting up, and the game was postponed before it started. No makeup date was announced.
"It's going to rain until probably 9 o' clock," Yankees manager Joe Girardi said. "It's just not going to be playable."
The two AL East rivals are not scheduled to meet again in the Bronx until August.
Yankees starter CC Sabathia will pitch Monday in Baltimore, followed on Tuesday by Phil Hughes. This means rookie Vidal Nuno will be skipped and remain available out of the bullpen until the Yankees can find a way to work him back into the rotation.
Toronto right-hander R.A. Dickey will face Tampa Bay on Monday.
Dickey and the Blue Jays may have dodged some bad luck, with the rainout, which was announced more than half an hour before the scheduled start time of 1:08 p.m.
He has had outings in the past where wet weather appeared to nullify the effectiveness of his hard, darting knuckleball and leave him without his most effective pitch.
The Blue Jays had won four straight before dropping the first two of a three-game series in the Bronx.
New York has won its last nine home games against Toronto, since last season, as well as the last six in a row overall against the Blue Jays.
"There's no question they've had our number. They've out played us, too," Toronto manager John Gibbons said. "This has always been a tough place to play."
The Yankees have outplayed pretty much everyone lately. They've won nine of their last 12 and facing Dickey on a wet day, appeared in a good spot to make it 10 out of 13.
"We weren't necessarily looking for a rainout," Girardi said.
Girardi said that Yankees officials met with umpire crew chief Joe West and consulted their metorologists about the forecast, which Girardi said showed rain falling in New York until after dark.
That made the decision a fairly easy one.
The delay pushed back Reid Brignac's debut with the Yankees, too.
The infielder was acquired in a trade with the Rockies for cash after Colorado designated the infielder for assignment. He arrived Saturday night. He was set to play shortstop and bat eighth.
"It was a little disappointing, I was really looking forward to getting the chance to play here today as a member of the Yankees," Brignac said.
"I'm tickled just to get the chance to be a Yankee."
Notes: Toronto's only win over the Yankees this season was an 8-4 win on April 21. . Dickey will face Tampa Bay RHP Jake Odorizzi, who is making his 2013 debut. RHP Ramon Ortiz will pitch Tuesday, followed by Mark Buehrle on Wednesday. The Blue Jays skipped the turn of RHP Chad Jenkins. .Yankees OF Curtis Granderson was going to lead off and return to center field a day after his first start in right. . . Yankees C Francisco Cervelli said he was still hoping to return from a broken hand before the All-Star break. He is on the 60-day DL. . "Waitin' on a Sunny Day" by Bruce Springsteen and the E Street Band was played on the PA shortly before the Yankees announced the postponement. . In Baltimore, the Yankees will send out Sabathia against Freddy Garcia on Monday. The veteran RHP spent the last two seasons as a mostly effective part of the Yankees rotation after a career mostly spent with the Mariners and White Sox. ... The Blue Jays claimed RHP Thad Weber on waivers from San Diego and optioned him to Triple-A Buffalo. Toronto transferred RHP Sergio Santos to the 60-day DL. The 28-year-old had a 2.00 ERA in nine innings for the Padres this season.
? 2012 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
advertisement
More newsGetty ImagesHBT: Carlos Ruiz was lifted from Sunday afternoon?s game against the Reds after straining his right hamstring while running the bases in the bottom of the second inning.
Source: http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/51933847/ns/sports-baseball/
bachelor pad bachelor pad Green Coffee Bean Extract september 11 9/11 Memorial 911 masterchef
May 17, 2013 ? A new, highly sensitive blood test that quickly detects even the lowest levels of malaria parasites in the body could make a dramatic difference in efforts to tackle the disease in the UK and across the world, according to new research published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases.
In two studies led by researchers in the UK and Switzerland, the new LAMP (loop-mediated isothermal amplification) test was compared to existing methods in London laboratories that deal with imported cases of malaria to the UK, and to diagnostic methods used in the field in Uganda, where malaria is a leading cause of illness and death.
The simple test, which can be performed by a non-specialist health worker and does not need refrigerating like other tests, requires a sample of blood to be processed and placed in a test tube with a reactive powder then heated. If the malaria-causing Plasmodium parasites are present, the tube glows green. The whole process takes less than an hour.
The first study, led in London by the Hospital for Tropical Diseases (HTD), the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics and the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, compared LAMP to existing laboratory diagnostic methods on 705 blood samples of suspected imported malaria cases in the UK.
Dr Colin Sutherland, Clinical Scientist at HTD and Reader in Parasitology at the Malaria Reference Laboratory at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, said: "According to data collected for Public Health England by the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the UK treats at least 1,500 cases of imported malaria every year. Despite the very best efforts of the NHS, a handful of malaria related deaths still occur annually in UK hospitals. The new LAMP test for malaria performed very well when tested in the parasite reference laboratory at HTD, and correctly identified every malaria patient out of 705 malaria tests performed.
"An important advantage of LAMP is that non-specialist staff in any hospital in the UK will be able to accurately and rapidly detect the presence of malaria parasites, and immediately begin treatment without waiting for confirmation from local experts or specialist laboratories. This speed of diagnosis can make the difference between an uncomplicated episode of malaria that rapidly responds to treatment, and progression to severe disease, organ failure and heightened risk of death. It could also save the NHS a significant amount of money from having to treat the complications of malaria."
LAMP was faster than PCR (polymerase chain reaction) tests, which require specialised laboratory equipment, costly reagents and advanced training. It was also more accurate than microscopic examination of blood slides, which require a trained specialist to identify the malaria parasites.
In the second study, researchers from HTD, the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, Switzerland, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and the Uganda Ministry of Health, Kampala, looked at the accuracy of the test at a rural clinic in Uganda.
Blood samples from 272 patients with suspected malaria were tested using LA MP using a simple generator to provide electrical current. These results were compared with expert microscopy and PCR performed at central reference laboratories. LAMP detected cases of low-level malaria parasite infection that were missed by expert microscopy, and achieved accuracy similar to that of PCR down to very low levels. The researchers say these findings have important implications for eliminating malaria, which causes an estimated 660,000 deaths worldwide every year.
Dr Sutherland, who worked on both of the studies, said: "Patterns of malaria disease in Africa and elsewhere across the tropics are becoming much less predictable, and control of malaria needs an appropriate test to identify infected individuals in the populations at risk. These people may not display any malaria symptoms. We have begun using LAMP as a new tool for identifying "hot spots" of malaria infections which can be mopped up quickly through a combination of drug treatment, house spraying and distribution of bed-nets.
"LAMP will potentially contribute to saving many families and communities from the blight of a disease that keeps children from succeeding at school, prevents adults from growing food or working, holds back regional economies and exacts an annual death toll in the hundreds of thousands."
The LAMP malaria test will now be used in the Malaria Reference Laboratory at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine to help identify imported cases of malaria in the UK as well as being used by health workers in the field in malaria endemic countries.
The LAMP malaria test is commercially available and was developed by the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, the Hospital for Tropical Diseases, London and Eiken Chemical Company Ltd, Japan. The studies were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Government of The Netherlands, and the UK Department for International Development.
Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/~3/M9d7yJdth0c/130517102718.htm
natalee holloway scotty mccreery megan fox pregnant metta world peace suspension apple earnings report john l smith apple earnings
?Our films are really strong this year across the board,? he said.??Whether they are climbing, environmental or just general interest films, we have been struck by how well-made they are. While there are always lots of compelling subjects for us to choose from, it?s very unusual to see such consistent high quality up and down the playlist.?
At the heart of Mountainfilm?s mission, and reflected clearly throughout the final list of some 90 films that will screen at this year?s festival, are ?issues that matter.? Holbrooke says there will be plenty of fun on the silver screen, thrilling adventure and lots of adrenaline, but films that take a penetrating look at critical contemporary matters are at the forefront of his programming.
?I feel that our lineup encompasses a lot of what is happening right now around the world,? he said. ?For instance, there is a strong group of films about the environment, particularly about how we get our energy. Then, we have three films that look at combat: ?Dirty Wars,? ?Manhunt? and ?Which Way is the Front Line from Here?? Together they are a commentary on America?s perpetual state of war.?
Holbrooke offered the following further examples of this year?s powerful and varied line up:
The Crash Reel? An unflinching film by Oscar-nominated director Lucy Walker that chronicles the traumatic brain injury suffered by Olympics-bound snowboarder Kevin Pearce and his arduous road to recovery. (Mountainfilm Commitment Grant recipient.)
Dirty Wars - A disturbing story about American military might gone bad that weaves together the tragic effects of a drone strike intended for a cabal of terrorists that ended up hitting a Yemeni wedding party instead.
Gasland 2? Director Josh Fox takes us all around the world to show what is happening to the vast landscapes that are being fracked for natural gas. And he introduces us to the people ? many of them reluctant environmentalists ? who are organizing and fighting against fracking.
God Loves Uganda- After introducing the memorable ?Music by Prudence? to Mountainfilm in 2009, Director Roger Ross Williams returns with a different look at Africa ? virulent anti-gay legislation in Uganda that is systemically supported by American Christian missionaries.
High and Hallowed- In May of 1963, a team of brave Americans assembled on Mt. Everest in an effort to be the first from the U.S. to stand atop the world?s tallest mountain. This is primarily the story of those first Americans on Everest 50 years ago, but it also incorporates a modern-day attempt on the West Ridge in 2012. (World Premiere.)
Life According to Sam? Sixteen-year-old Sam Berns is older than his years because he has progeria, a rare disease that ages the heart rapidly and kills most by age 13. Despite the challenges, he doesn?t stop trying to live the life of a normal teenager and, in the process, achieves extraordinary success.
Lunarcy - This film follows several characters who have gone completely bonkers for the moon: Alan Bean is one of the 12 men who have walked on the moon and is now creating moon art; Dennis Hope discovered a loophole in the 1967 U.N. Outer Space Treaty that would seem to allow individual ownership of extra-terrestrial bodies; and, Christopher Carson aims to be the first citizen of a colonized moon.
Maidentrip? The story of Laura Decker who, at age 14, after a long legal battle with the Dutch government over her right to do so, cast off to become the youngest person ever to sail alone around the world.
Pandora?s Promise - A film that questions much of what we accept as fact about the negative side of nuclear as an alternative to fossil fuels. Surprising, given that the director?s first film was an anti-nuclear weapons documentary called Radio Bikini, nominated for the Academy Award for Best Documentary in 1988
Rising from Ashes - In a year when cycling has suffered with the disgrace of Lance Armstrong, it?s a relief to see racers who recognize that it?s not all about the bike. This film relates the remarkable story of the Rwandan race team, cyclists who are pedaling away from the horror of genocide.
Uranium Drive-In ? Some 50 miles northwest of Telluride is a cluster of dusty, hardscrabble towns where many locals hope a proposed uranium mill will bring back economic vitality. Given its potential health and environmental risks, however, the mill is controversial. Uranium Drive-In looks at this conundrum from both sides. World Premiere. Mountainfilm Commitment Grant recipient.
Please click here for a complete look at Mountainfilm in Telluride?s 2013 festival line up. And here for special guest profiles.
__ __
About Mountainfilm: Established in 1979, Mountainfilm in Telluride is dedicated to educating and inspiring audiences about environments, cultures, issues and adventures. Working at the nexus of filmmaking and action, its flagship program is the legendary Mountainfilm Festival? a one-of-a-kind combination of films, conversations and inspiration. Mountainfilm also reaches audiences year round through its worldwide tour, on Outside Television, with its online Minds of Mountainfilm interviews and in classrooms through its educational outreach initiative, Making Movies that Matter. Mountainfilm has the power to change lives. To learn more, visit www.mountainfilm.org. To join the conversation, please visit the Mountainfilm in Telluride blog, follow us on Twitter and become a fan on Facebook.
Source: http://www.tellurideinside.com/2013/05/mountain-film-full-line-up-of-festival-films.html
nfl mock draft project m colts colts big ten tournament 2012 dennis quaid bruce weber fired
Outgoing Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service Steve Miller. (Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Outgoing IRS Commissioner Steven Miller apologized Friday on behalf of the federal tax collection agency for unfairly targeting conservative groups applying for tax-exempt status. But Miller insisted the practice was "absolutely not illegal."
The IRS is under fire for placing heavier scrutiny on organizations with words like "tea party" or "patriots" in their name when they applied for nonprofit status between 2010 and 2012, according to a report unveiled this week by the Treasury Department's inspector general for tax administration.
"It is absolutely not illegal," Miller said during an exchange with Georgia Republican Rep. Tom Price during a four-hour House Ways and Means Committee hearing.
"Do you believe it is illegal for employees of the IRS to create lists, to target individual groups and citizens in this country?" Price responded.
"I think the Treasury Inspector General indicated it might not be, but others will be able to tell that," Miller said.
"What do you believe?" Price asked.
"I don't believe it is," Miller said, adding, "I don't believe it should happen. Please don't get me wrong. It should not happen."
Miller, who was appointed acting commissioner of the agency in November 2012, was deputy commissioner for services and enforcement during the period the scrutiny of conservative groups was taking place. He opened the hearing Friday morning with a brief statement in which he apologized for the IRS' actions and said that "foolish mistakes were made." He aggressively pushed back against accusations that the agency's decisions were politically motivated.
?I do not believe that partisanship motivated the people that engaged in the practices described in the inspector general?s report,? Miller said. ?Foolish mistakes were made by people who were trying to be more efficient in their work.?
Sitting next to Miller at the hearing, Treasury Inspector General J. Russell George testified that in his investigation he "did not" find evidence that the agency's decisions were motivated by politics.
Lawmakers from both parties grilled Miller through the morning and into the early afternoon, posing questions on when he learned of the agency's practices, why the agency singled out organizations with conservative leanings for heavier scrutiny, and whether the IRS disclosed private tax information to other government agencies.
Miller repeatedly denied that the IRS intentionally used political criteria to determine levels of scrutiny on groups applying for tax-exempt status.
"Generally, we provided horrible customer service here. I will admit that, we did," Miller said when questioned by Rep. Pat Tiberi, an Ohio Republican. "Horrible customer service. Whether it is politically motivated or not is a very different question."
When asked to point to specific employees within the IRS who were responsible, Miller declined. ?I don?t have names for you,? he told Texas Republican Rep. Kevin Brady.
California Republican Rep. Devin Nunes questioned Miller about why he resigned from his position as a result of the IRS' practices. Earlier this week, President Barack Obama announced that Miller would step down.
"I never said I didn't do anything wrong, Mr. Nunes," Miller said. "I resigned because, as the acting commissioner, what happens in the IRS, whether I was personally involved or not, stops at my desk. So I should be held accountable for what happens. Whether I was personally involved or not are very different questions, sir."
Friday's hearing is the first hearing since it the IRS' practices became known last week. The House Oversight Committee will hold its own hearing next Wednesday with former IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman, who led the agency from 2008 to November 2012.
the night they drove old dixie down levon robbie robertson the curious case of benjamin button secret service prostitute rich ross april 20
For those who believe that a robust public-affairs journalism is essential for a society striving to be democratic, the 21st?century has been characterized by bad news that keeps getting worse.
Whatever one?s evaluation of traditional advertising-supported news media (and I have been among its critics; more on that later), the unraveling of that business model has left us with fewer professional journalists who are being paid a living wage to do original reporting. It?s unrealistic to imagine that journalism can flourish without journalists who have the time and resources to do journalism.
For those who care about a robust human presence on the planet, the 21st?century has been characterized by really bad news that keeps getting really, really worse.
Whatever one?s evaluation of high-energy/high-technology civilization (and I have been among its critics; more on that later), it?s now clear that we are hitting physical limits; we cannot expect to maintain contemporary levels of consumption that draw down the ecological capital of the planet at rates dramatically beyond replacement levels. It unrealistic to imagine that we can go on treating the planet as nothing more than a mine from which we extract and a landfill into which we dump.
We have no choice but to deal with the collapse of journalism, but we also should recognize the need for a journalism of collapse. Everyone understands that economic changes are forcing a refashioning of the journalism profession. It?s long past time for everyone to pay attention to how multiple, cascading ecological crises should be changing professional journalism?s mission in even more dramatic fashion.
It?s time for an apocalyptic journalism (that takes some explaining; a lot more on that later).
The Basics of Journalism: Ideals and Limitations
With the rapid expansion of journalistic-like material on the internet, it?s especially crucial to define ?real? journalism. In a democratic system, ideally journalism is a critical, independent source of information, analysis, and the varied opinions needed by citizens who want to play a meaningful role in the formation of public policy. The key terms are ?critical? and ?independent??to fulfill the promise of a free press, journalists must be willing to critique not only specific people and policies, but the systems out of which they emerge, and they must be as free as possible from constraining influences, both overt and subtle. Also included in that definition of journalism is an understanding of democracy??a meaningful role in the formation of public policy??as more than just lining up to vote in elections that offer competing sets of elites who represent roughly similar programs. Meaningful democracy involves meaningful participation.
This discussion will focus on what is typically called mainstream journalism, the corporate-commercial news media. These are the journalists who work for daily newspapers, broadcast and cable television, and the corporately owned platforms on the internet and other digital devices. Although there are many types of independent and alternative journalism of varying quality, the vast majority of Americans continue to receive the vast majority of their news from these mainstream sources, which are almost always organized as large corporations and funded primarily by advertising.
Right-wing politicians and commentators sometimes refer to the mainstream media as the ?lamestream,? implying that journalists are comically incompetent and incapable of providing an accurate account of the world, likely due to a lack of understanding of conservative people and their ideas. While many elite journalists may be dismissive of the cultural values of conservatives, this critique ignores the key questions about journalism?s relationship to power. Focusing on the cultural politics of individual reporters and editors?pointing out that they tend to be less religious and more supportive of gay and women?s rights than the general public, for example?diverts attention from more crucial questions about how the institutional politics of corporate owners and managers shapes the news and keeps mainstream journalism within a centrist/right conventional wisdom.
The managers of commercial news organizations in the United States typically reject that claim by citing the unbreachable ?firewall? between the journalistic and the business sides of the operation, which is supposed to allow journalists to pursue any story without interference from the corporate front office. This exchange I had with a newspaper editor captures the ideology: After listening to my summary of this critique of the U.S. commercial news media system, this editor (let?s call him Joe) told me proudly: ?No one from corporate headquarters has ever called me to tell me what to run in my paper.? I asked Joe if it were possible that he simply had internalized the value system of the folks who run the corporation (and, by extension, the folks who run most of the world), and therefore they never needed to give him direct instructions. He rejected that, reasserting his independence from any force outside his newsroom.
I countered: ?Let?s say, for the purposes of discussion, that you and I were equally capable journalists in terms of professional skills, that we were both reasonable candidates for the job of editor-in-chief that you hold. If we had both applied for the job, do you think your corporate bosses would have ever considered me for the position, given my politics? Would I, for even a second, have been seen by them to be a viable candidate for the job??
Joe?s politics are pretty conventional, well within the range of mainstream Republicans and Democrats?he supports big business and U.S. supremacy in global politics and economics. I?m a critic of capitalism and U.S. foreign policy. On some political issues, Joe and I would agree, but we diverge sharply on these core questions of the nature of the economy and the state.
Joe pondered my question and conceded that I was right, that his bosses would never hire someone with my politics, no matter how qualified, to run one of their newspapers. The conversation trailed off, and we parted without resolving our differences. I would like to think my critique at least got Joe to question his platitudes, but I never saw any evidence of that. In his subsequent writing and public comments that I read and heard, Joe continued to assert that a news media system dominated by for-profit corporations was the best way to produce the critical, independent journalism that citizens in a democracy needed. Because he was in a position of some privilege and status, nothing compelled Joe to respond to my challenge.
Partly as a result of many such unproductive conversations, I continue to search for new ways to present a critique of mainstream journalism that might break through that ideological wall. In addition to thinking about alternatives to this traditional business model, we should confront the limitations of the corresponding professional model, with its status-quo-supportive ideology of neutrality, balance, and objectivity. Can we create conditions under which journalism?deeply critical and truly independent?can flourish in these trying times?
In this essay I want to try out theological concepts of the royal, prophetic, and apocalyptic traditions. Though journalism is a secular institution, religion can provide a helpful vocabulary. The use of these terms is not meant to imply support for any particular religious tradition, or for religion more generally, but only recognizes that the fundamental struggles of human history play out in religious and secular settings, and we can learn from all of that history. With a focus on the United States, I?ll drawn on the concepts as they understood in the dominant U.S. tradition of Judaism and Christianity.
Royal Journalism
Most of today?s mainstream corporate-commercial journalism?the work done by people such as Joe?is royal journalism, using the term ?royal? not to describe a specific form of executive power but as a description of a system that centralizes authority and marginalizes the needs of ordinary people. The royal tradition describes ancient Israel, the Roman empire, European monarchs, or contemporary America?societies in which those with concentrated wealth and power can ignore the needs of the bulk of the population, societies where the wealthy and powerful offer platitudes about their beneficence as they pursue policies to enrich themselves.
In his books?The Prophetic Imagination?and?The Practice of Prophetic Imagination, theologian Walter Brueggemann points out that this royal consciousness took hold after ancient Israel sank into disarray, when Solomon overturned Moses?affluence, oppressive social policy, and static religion replaced a God of liberation with one used to serve an empire. This consciousness develops not only in top leaders but throughout the privileged sectors, often filtering down to a wider public that accepts royal power. Brueggemann labels this a false consciousness: ?The royal consciousness leads people to numbness, especially to numbness about death.?
The inclusion of the United States in a list of royalist societies may seem odd, given the democratic traditions of the country, but consider a nation that has been at war for more than a decade, in which economic inequality and the resulting suffering has dramatically deepened for the past four decades, in which climate change denial has increased as the evidence of the threat becomes undeniable. Brueggemann describes such a culture as one that is ?competent to implement almost anything and to imagine almost nothing.?
Almost all mainstream corporate-commercial journalism is, in this sense, royal journalism. It is journalism without the imagination needed to move outside the framework created by the dominant systems of power. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX News all practice royal journalism.?The New York Times?is ground zero for royal journalism. Marking these institutions as royalist doesn?t mean that no good journalism ever emerges from them, or that they employ no journalists who are capable of challenging royal arrangements. Instead, the term recognizes that these institutions lack the imagination necessary to step outside of the royal consciousness on a regular basis. Over time, they add to the numbness rather than jolt people out of it.
The royal consciousness of our day is defined by unchallengeable commitments to a high-energy/high-technology worldview, within a hierarchical economy, run by an imperial nation-state. These technological, economic, and national fundamentalisms produce a certain kind of story about ourselves, which encourages the belief that we can have anything we want without obligations to other peoples or other living things, and that we deserve this. Brueggemann argues that this bolsters notions of ?US exceptionalism that gives warrant to the usurpatious pursuit of commodities in the name of freedom, at the expense of the neighbor.?
If one believes royal arrangements are just and sustainable, then royal journalism could be defended. If the royal tradition is illegitimate, than a different journalism is necessary.
Prophetic Journalism
Given the multiple crises that existing political, economic, and social systems have generated, the ideals of journalism call for a prophetic journalism. The first step in defending that claim is to remember what real prophets are not: They are not people who predict the future or demand that others follow them in lockstep. In the Hebrew Bible and Christian New Testament, prophets are the figures who remind the people of the best of the tradition and point out how the people have strayed. In those traditions, using our prophetic imagination and speaking in a prophetic voice requires no special status in society, and no sense of being special. Claiming the prophetic tradition requires only honesty and courage.
When we strip away supernatural claims and delusions of grandeur, we can understand the prophetic as the calling out of injustice, the willingness not only to confront the abuses of the powerful but to acknowledge our own complicity. To speak prophetically requires us first to see honestly?both how our world is structured by systems that create unjust and unsustainable conditions, and how we who live in the privileged parts of the world are implicated in those systems. To speak prophetically is to refuse to shrink from what we discover or from our own place in these systems. We must confront the powers that be, and ourselves.
The Hebrew Bible offers us many models. Amos and Hosea, Jeremiah and Isaiah?all rejected the pursuit of wealth or power and argued for the centrality of kindness and justice. The prophets condemned corrupt leaders but also called out all those privileged people in society who had turned from the demands of justice, which the faith makes central to human life. In his analysis of these prophets, the scholar and activist Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel concluded:
Above all, the prophets remind us of the moral state of a people: Few are guilty, but all are responsible. If we admit that the individual is in some measure conditioned or affected by the spirit of society, an individual?s crime discloses society?s corruption.
Critical of royal consciousness, Brueggemann argues that the task of those speaking prophetically is to ?penetrate the numbness in order to face the body of death in which we are caught? and ?penetrate despair so that new futures can be believed in and embraced by us.? He encourages preachers to think of themselves as ?handler[s] of the prophetic tradition,? a job description that also applies to other intellectual professions, including journalism.
Brueggemann argues that this isn?t about intellectuals imposing their views and values on others, but about being willing to ?connect the dots?:
Prophetic preaching does not put people in crisis. Rather it names and makes palpable the crisis already pulsing among us. When the dots are connected, it will require naming the defining sins among us of environmental abuse, neighborly disregard, long-term racism, self-indulgent consumerism, all the staples from those ancient truthtellers translated into our time and place.
None of this requires journalists to advocate for specific politicians, parties, or political programs; we don?t need journalists to become propagandists. Journalists should strive for real independence but not confuse that with an illusory neutrality that traps mainstream journalists within ideological boundaries defined by the powerful. Again, real independence means the ability to critique not just the worst abuses by the powerful within the systems, but to critique the systems themselves.
This prophetic calling is consistent with the aphorism many journalists claim as a shorthand mission statement: The purpose of journalism is to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable. That phrase focuses on injustice within human societies, but what of the relationship of human beings to the larger living world? How should journalists understand their mission in that arena?
Ecological Realties
Let?s put analysis of journalism on hold and think about the larger world in which journalism operates. Journalistic ideals and norms should change as historical conditions change, and today that means facing tough questions about ecological sustainability.
There is considerable evidence to help us evaluate the health of the ecosphere on which our own lives depend, and an honest evaluation of that evidence leads to a disturbing conclusion: Life as we know it is almost over. That is, the high-energy/high-technology life that we in the affluent societies live is a dead-end. There is a growing realization that we have disrupted planetary forces in ways we cannot control and do not fully understand. We cannot predict the specific times and places where dramatic breakdowns will occur, but we can know that the living system on which we depend is breaking down.
Does that seem histrionic? Excessively alarmist? Look at any crucial measure of the health of the ecosphere in which we live?groundwater depletion, topsoil loss, chemical contamination, increased toxicity in our own bodies, the number and size of ?dead zones? in the oceans, accelerating extinction of species and reduction of bio-diversity?and the news is bad. Add to that the mother of all ecological crises?global warming, climate change, climate disruption?and it?s clear that we are creating a planet that cannot indefinitely support a large-scale human presence living this culture?s idea of the good life.
We also live in an oil-based world that is rapidly depleting the cheap and easily accessible oil, which means we face a huge reconfiguration of the infrastructure that undergirds our lives. Meanwhile, the desperation to avoid that reconfiguration has brought us to the era of ?extreme energy? using even more dangerous and destructive technologies (hydrofracturing, deep-water drilling, mountain-top removal, tar sands extraction) to get at the remaining hydrocarbons.
Where we are heading? Off the rails? Into the wall? Over the cliff? Pick your favorite metaphor. Scientists these days are talking about tipping points and planetary boundaries, about how human activity is pushing the planet beyond its limits. Recently 22 top scientists in the prestigious journal?Nature?warned that humans likely are forcing a planetary-scale critical transition ?with the potential to transform Earth rapidly and irreversibly into a state unknown in human experience.? That means that ?the biological resources we take for granted at present may be subject to rapid and unpredictable transformations within a few human generations.?
That means that we?re in trouble, not in some imaginary science-fiction future, but in our present reality. We can?t pretend all that?s needed is tinkering with existing systems to fix a few environmental problems; significant changes in how we live are required. No matter where any one of us sits in the social and economic hierarchies, there is no escape from the dislocations that will come with such changes. Money and power might insulate some from the most wrenching consequences of these shifts, but there is no permanent escape. We do not live in stable societies and no longer live on a stable planet. We may feel safe and secure in specific places at specific times, but it?s hard to believe in any safety and security in a collective sense.
In short, we live in apocalyptic times.
Apocalypse
To be clear: Speaking apocalyptically need not be limited to claims that the world will end on a guru?s timetable or according to some allegedly divine plan. Lots of apocalyptic visions?religious and secular?offer such certainty, imaging the replacement of a corrupt society by one structured on principles that will redeem humanity (or at least redeem those who sign onto the principles). But this need not be our only understanding of the term.
Most discussions of revelation and apocalypse in contemporary America focus on the Book of Revelation, also known as The Apocalypse of John, the final book of the Christian New Testament. The two terms are synonymous in their original meaning; ?revelation? from Latin and ?apocalypse? from Greek both mean a lifting of the veil, a disclosure of something hidden from most people, a coming to clarity. Many scholars interpret the Book of Revelation not as a set of predictions about the future but as a critique of the oppression of the empire of that day, Rome.
To speak apocalyptically, in this tradition, is first and foremost about deepening our understanding of the world, seeing through the obfuscations of people in power. In our propaganda-saturated world (think about the amount of advertising, public relations, and marketing that we are bombarded with daily), coming to that kind of clarity about the nature of the empires of our day is always a struggle, and that notion of revelation is more crucial than ever.
Thinking apocalyptically, coming to this clarity, will force us to confront crises that concentrated wealth and power create, and reflect on our role in these systems. Given the severity of the human assault on the ecosphere, compounded by the suffering and strife within the human family, honest apocalyptic thinking that is firmly grounded in a systematic evaluation of the state of the world is not only sensible but a moral obligation. Rather than thinking of revelation as divine delivery of a clear message about some fantastic future above, we can engage in an ongoing process of revelation that results from an honest struggle to understand, a process that requires a lot of effort.
Things are bad, systems are failing, and the status quo won?t last forever. Thinking apocalyptically in this fashion demands of us considerable courage and commitment. This process will not produce definitive answers but rather help us identify new directions.
Again, to be very clear: ?Apocalypse? in this context does not mean lakes of fire, rivers of blood, or bodies lifted up to heaven. The shift from the prophetic to the apocalyptic can instead mark the point when hope in the viability of existing systems is no longer possible and we must think in dramatically new ways. Invoking the apocalyptic recognizes the end of something. It?s not about rapture but a rupture severe enough to change the nature of the whole game.
Apocalyptic Journalism
The prophetic imagination helps us analyze the historical moment we?re in, but it?s based on an implicit faith that the systems in which we live can be reshaped to stop the worst consequences of the royal consciousness, to shake off that numbness of death in time. What if that is no longer possible? Then it is time to think about what?s on the other side. ?The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice,? said Martin Luther King, Jr., one of the more well-known voices in the prophetic tradition. But if the arc is now bending toward a quite different future, a different approach is needed.
Because no one can predict the future, these two approaches are not mutually exclusive; people should not be afraid to think prophetically and apocalyptically at the same time. We can simultaneously explore immediate changes in the existing systems and think about new systems.
Invoking the prophetic in the face of royal consciousness does not promise quick change and a carefree future, but it implies that a disastrous course can be corrected. But what if the justification for such hope evaporates? When prophetic warnings have not been heeded, what comes next? This is the time when an apocalyptic sensibility is needed.
Fred Guterl, the executive editor of?Scientific American, models that spirit in his book?The Fate of the Species.Though he describes himself on the ?techno-optimistic side of the spectrum,? he does not shy away from a blunt discussion of the challenges humans face:
There?s no going back on our reliance on computers and high-tech medicine, agriculture, power generation, and so forth without causing vast human suffering?unless you want to contemplate reducing the world population by many billions of people. We have climbed out on a technological limb, and turning back is a disturbing option. We are dependent on our technology, yet our technology now presents the seeds of our own destruction. It?s a dilemma. I don?t pretend to have a way out. We should start by being aware of the problem.
I don?t share Guterl?s techno-optimism, but it strikes me as different from a technological fundamentalism (the quasi-religious belief that the use of advanced technology is always a good thing and that any problems caused by the unintended consequences of such technology can be remedied by more technology) that assumes that humans can invent themselves out of any problem. Guterl doesn?t deny the magnitude of the problems and recognizes the real possibility, perhaps even the inevitability, of massive social dislocation:
[W]e?re going to need the spirit with which these ideas were hatched to solve the problems we have created. Tossing aside technological optimism is not a realistic option. This doesn?t mean technology is going to save us. We may still be doomed. But without it, we are surely doomed.
Closer to my own assessment is James Lovelock, a Fellow of the Royal Society, whose work led to the detection of the widespread presence CFCs in the atmosphere. Most famous for his ?Gaia hypothesis? that understands both the living and non-living parts of the earth as a complex system that can be thought of as a single organism, he suggests that we face these stark realities immediately:
The great party of the twentieth century is coming to an end, and unless we now start preparing our survival kit we will soon be just another species eking out an existence in the few remaining habitable regions. ? We should be the heart and mind of the Earth, not its malady. So let us be brave and cease thinking of human needs and rights alone and see that we have harmed the living Earth and need to make our peace with Gaia.
Anything that blocks us from looking honestly at reality, no matter how harsh the reality, must be rejected. It?s a lot to ask, of people and of journalists, to not only think about this, but put it at the center of our lives. What choice do we have? To borrow from one of 20th?century America?s most honest writers, James Baldwin, ?Not everything that is faced can be changed; but nothing can be changed until it is faced.?
That line is from an essay titled ?As Much Truth as One Can Bear,? about the struggles of artists to help a society, such as the white-supremacist America, face the depth of its pathology. Baldwin suggested that a great writer attempts ?to tell as much of the truth as one can bear, and then a little more.? If we think of Baldwin as sounding a prophetic call, an apocalyptic invocation would be ?to tell as much of the truth as one can bear, and then all the rest of the truth, whether we can bear it or not.?
That task is difficult enough when people are relatively free to pursue inquiry without external constraints. Are the dominant corporate-commercial/
[INSERT HOPEFUL ENDING HERE]
That subhead is not an editing oversight. I wish there were an easy solution, an upbeat conclusion. I don?t have one. I?ve never heard anyone else articulate one. To face the world honestly at this moment in human history likely means giving up on easy and upbeat.
The apocalyptic tradition reminds us that the absence of hope does not have to leave us completely hopeless, that life is always at the same time about death, and then rejuvenation. If we don?t have easy, upbeat solutions and conclusions, we have the ability to keep telling stories of struggle. Our stories do not change the physical world, but they have the potential to change us. In that sense, the poet Muriel Rukeyser was right when she said, ?The universe is made of stories, not of atoms.?
To think apocalyptically is not to give up on ourselves, but only to give up on the arrogant stories that we modern humans have been telling about ourselves. The royal must give way to the prophetic and the apocalyptic. The central story that power likes to tell?that the domination/subordination dynamic that structures so much of modern life is natural and inevitable?must give way to stories of dignity, solidarity, equality. We must resist not only the cruelty of repression but the seduction of comfort.
The best journalists in our tradition have seen themselves as responsible for telling stories about the struggle for social justice. Today, we can add stories about the struggle for ecological sustainability to that mission. Our hope for a decent future?indeed, any hope for even the idea of a future?depends on our ability to tell stories not of how humans have ruled the world but how we can live in the world.
Whether or not we like it, we are all apocalyptic now.
AlterNet
lifelock chevy volt christina hendricks camp david hawaii weather the jerk lake havasu
