Cosmic Powers

Cosmic Powers
Cosmic Powers

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

Forgotten Disaster in New Zealand: 20 Earthquakes per Day since September

7,500 earthquakes shake resolve in NZealand city

 
"I stop breathing," said Sheridan Cattermole, a bartender and a mom. "I get pins and needles all over. I either freeze or run. I just want things to be back to what they were like this time last year. I had my vege garden, and my sunflowers."

Seismologists have recorded 7,500 earthquakes in Christchurch since September — an average of more than 20 a day. The rumblings are rattling the psyche of the still-battered city. They have left the land under thousands of homes unsafe to build on. Some people have left town entirely. Yet many have proven resilient, and some now see a reconstruction boom on the horizon.

Christchurch is the disaster that the world forgot. When the deadly quake toppled the iconic Cathedral spire and flattened buildings in this city of 390,000, people around the globe paid attention. But two weeks later, the massive earthquake and tsunami that left more than 23,000 dead and missing in Japan took center stage.

In New Zealand, the quake in Christchurch is reverberating. In a country of 4 million people, the cost of the quakes — estimated at more than $12 billion — amounts to 8 percent of annual economic output. Compare that to Hurricane Katrina, whose costs were less than 1 percent of U.S. gross domestic product. Christchurch will likely eclipse the Japan disaster in cost per person.
And nobody knows if the worst has passed. Not even the experts.

When Kevin Furlong, a professor of geosciences at Penn State University, came to Christchurch on a sabbatical last year, he thought he would be studying earthquakes in the abstract — not living through them.

The quakes in the city have not followed the classic pattern, he said. Typically, a big quake hits and is followed by a series of ever-diminishing aftershocks.

In Christchurch, the initial Sept. 4 magnitude-7.0 quake didn't cause widespread destruction because it was centered 30 miles (50 kilometers) west of the city, but it helped trigger at least two distinct new quakes on different fault lines, each with their own pattern of aftershocks.

Click here to see more photos


First came a deadly magnitude 6.1 quake on Feb. 22, which was centered almost directly under a residential area and flattened buildings that had withstood the earlier quake. Then a 6.0 magnitude quake struck on June 13. Though no one died, it was a psychological blow to people trying to rebuild.

Earthquakes are maddeningly difficult to predict, Furlong said. There's no way of knowing whether there's more to come, he said, though the odds improve with each day that passes without a major event.

New Zealand geologists estimated last week that there was a 23 percent chance another big quake would hit within a year, down from 30 percent last month.

"I've become much more attuned to what the public wants to know: 'When will it stop and why are we having them,'" Furlong said. "To be honest, it's really frustrating. You just can't answer those very appropriate first-order questions."

That uncertainty is no comfort to people like Cattermole. She and her husband Pete, a cabinetmaker, and their three young children remained in their home in the working-class suburb of Bexley long after most neighbors had left.

As recently as late June, they were sleeping in the living room to escape the muck creeping through the walls and floor at the sunken rear of their home. Their ruined possessions lay in a heap in the front yard, awaiting an insurance assessment.

All around, buckled homes sat abandoned atop a sea of mud and sand. A makeshift blue water pipe snaked along the sidewalk. The few who remained announced their presence with cardboard signs like the Cattermoles': "3 Children & 2 Adults Still Here."

The problem: a phenomenon called liquefaction, when an earthquake forces underground water up through loose soil.

"It's the same physics as quicksand," Furlong said. "Whole acres turn into something of a liquid. Houses sink. Water and mud jet up through the surface. You get cracks, sand volcanoes, flooding."

He said that geologists are reassessing the importance of liquefaction after the devastating impact it has had on Christchurch.

Cattermole and her family endured long stretches without fresh water and, with the sewer system broken, used a portable toilet on the street or a chemical toilet inside. "There's so much stress around, you can just see it," she said.

They have since found a rental home and are moving out.

Their previous home was among more than 5,000 condemned by the New Zealand government last month because of liquefaction. Most are in the city's low-income eastern suburbs. Thousands more are likely to be condemned in what will force a major redesign of the suburbs.

The government has offered to pay homeowners for their losses, but many, Cattermole included, fear they will be priced out of new homes.

"There's a plentiful supply of Rolls Royce-priced sections, but they're not affordable for people on Toyota Corolla incomes," said Hugh Pavletich, a longtime Christchurch property developer and critic of the city's land-use policies. City officials say they're working hard to ensure there's plenty of affordable new land for displaced residents.

It's hard to gauge what long-term effect the quakes will have. School enrollment is down about 7 percent — an indication of families leaving — and the economy is fragile. Retail sales are down about 11 percent from pre-earthquake levels, and unemployment claims are up about 14 percent.

The center of the city remains off-limits behind chain-link fences and will stay that way for months, possibly years.

Demolition crews are planning to tear down about 1,000 hotels, office buildings and other unsafe structures. So far, they've taken down fewer than 150. City officials estimate it will take nine months just to demolish the 26-story Hotel Grand Chancellor, which has been teetering since February. When the city center reopens, fewer than half the buildings will remain.

The new downtown is likely to be much lower. Christchurch residents appear to have little appetite for high-rises these days. "The magic number I'm hearing is three stories," said Connal Townsend, chief executive of the Property Council of New Zealand, which represents commercial property owners.

Around the country, building owners are bracing for big insurance premium increases, particularly for older structures, Townsend said. Homeowners are also likely to see earthquake insurance rates climb significantly.

The Port of Christchurch in Lyttelton, which handles almost all the region's freight, has been unable to secure any earthquake insurance since June. The port's chief executive, Peter Davie, said he is essentially crossing his fingers, hoping that no more damaging quakes hit.

Even the Christchurch City Council has been unable to secure new earthquake insurance for much of its infrastructure.

Still, many are hoping that the billions of dollars flowing in from government and insurance payments will stoke a boom within a couple of years.

As the city looks to rebuild, Townsend said much will depend on the vision of city leaders: A bold reconstruction plan would inspire confidence and investment, while a second-rate one could scare away investors.

Attention is turning to Roger Sutton, a former energy executive who took a pay cut in June to become the first Christchurch earthquake czar, with broad planning powers.

Asked if he was worried whether new earthquakes could cause more damage, Sutton shook his head and said, "Hopefully, there's not much more to break."


Saturday, July 16, 2011

Netflix costs unchanged, yet prices INCREASE BY 60%. Why?!?

My response to the article found below: Why would Netflix risk ticking off its customer base for a few extra bucks???

The article down below attempts to figure out why Netflix is increasing prices by 60%.  Let's not beat around the bush, the price increase is intended to please the shareholders.  According to the article below, Netflix acknowledges the fact that its internal cost of business has not increased.  So, a price increase is simply a direct relationship to pleasing shareholders.

Higher prices with no increase in costs = Higher Gross Margins = Higher Profits = More $$$ for HAPPY SHAREHOLDERS!!!


Think of it this way.  Netflix has 23 million customers with revenues of $2.3 billion.  With this 60% price hike, Netflix can stand to lose over 8 million subscribers (that's over 34% of its customer base) yet they will still have roughly the same revenues.  

Here is the simple math*:
  • Currently 23mil customers X the average total revenue per customer ($100/yr) = $2.3bil
  • Losing 34% of its customers would bring 23mil down to approximately 15mil customers
  • 60% price increase brings the average total revenue per customer from $100 to $160/yr
  • $160 of revenue per customer/yr X 15mil customers = $2.4bil in new total revenues
*These are all rough estimates, but you get the point. 

Think about that for one second.  If you owned a business, and you no longer had to service 34% of your customers, yet you still had the same total revenue coming in.  The immediate result would be higher margins.  

  • Fewer customers to service = lower operating costs.  
  • Maintaining revenues while decreasing costs = higher margins.

Why lower operating costs?  When Netflix loses a few million customers (because you know they will with this price increase) you can bet your A$$ they will lower its internal operating costs.
 
For example:

  • This includes the inevitable RIF (Reduction In Workforce).  They have not announced this yet, but I guarantee they will be making announcements by the 4th quarter.  It will not be large reductions, but enough to justify fewer customer service reps for the loss of customers (since losing a few mil customers will leave a few call centers at Netflix twiddling their thumbs after the price changes are in full swing).  
  • Additionally, look for other savings in its DVD side of the business.  Fewer requests in DVD rentals will result in less postage, less space needed to stock the DVDs, fewer DVDs for fewer customers, less envelopes due to fewer mailings etc.

In the end, the customer loses and Netflix Shareholders win.  That's business 101.  
I know that I will definitely drop part of my subscription since I rarely rent DVDs to start with.  I think it's only a matter of time before other services like Hulu or Apple figure out a more cost effective way to integrate more streaming content options at a competitive fixed rate.  

See original article below:

Why Netflix Raised Its Prices

nytimes

Related Quotes

SymbolPriceChange
NFLX286.93+0.31
Chart for Netflix, Inc.
, On Thursday July 14, 2011, 11:39 am EDT
Sad, sad, sad. The world's best deal in TV and movies has just gone away.

I refer, of course, to Netflix's $10-a-month deal: unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming TV shows and movies.

This week, Netflix abruptly jacked up its price for that deal by 60 percent. Now, if you want to check out one DVD-by-mail at a time, and enjoy unlimited streaming of Netflix's 20,000 TV shows and (mostly older) movies to your computer, phone or Blu-ray player, you have to pay $16 a month instead of $10. (The price hike hits new customers immediately, and existing customers on Sept. 1.)

This, as you can imagine, is not a popular decision. This isn't a cost-of-living increase. This isn't inflation. It's a 60 percent overnight price increase - that gives you nothing new in return.

No wonder people are irate. "I was a loyal Netflix subscriber since 2005," goes one of the 44,000 seething messages on Netflix's Facebook page. "Since they have grown into this BIG GREEDY CORPORATION in the past few years, they've decided to hit its loyal customers with a 60% increase in fees and expect us to pay it! WELL NETFLIX AS OF 31 AUGUST 2011, CANCEL MY ACCOUNT!!!!!!!!!!!!"

All over the Web, you can read analysts explaining the backstory this way: "Why, when Netflix first unveiled its streaming feature in 2007, nobody else was streaming this stuff. To the TV and movie companies, it was free money. But now, all those contracts with Netflix are up for renewal, and the movie and TV studios are all charging Netflix a lot more!"

There's only one problem with that analysis: According to Netflix, it's wrong. The new studio contracts have nothing to do with the price change.

In fact, Netflix swears up and down that higher costs of doing business have nothing to do with the price hike.

So the question is: Why?

Netflix's blog offers this:
"Why the changes? Last November, when we launched our $7.99 unlimited streaming plan, DVDs by mail was treated as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan. At the time, we didn't anticipate offering DVD only plans. Since then we have realized that there is still a very large continuing demand for DVDs both from our existing members as well as non-members. Given the long life we think DVDs by mail will have, treating DVDs as a $2 add on to our unlimited streaming plan neither makes great financial sense nor satisfies people who just want DVDs. Creating an unlimited DVDs by mail plan (no streaming) at our lowest price ever, $7.99, does make sense and will ensure a long life for our DVDs by mail offering."

I've read it five times, but I have no idea what that means. How does a 60 percent price hike "ensure a long life for our DVDs by mail"? Does it mean they'll buy more discs? Use thicker shipping envelopes?

And how can Netflix, the world leader in DVD distribution, be so dense as to "realize" only now that some people still want DVDs?!

What I just can't get past is this: Apparently, the DVD+unlimited plan was profitable at $10. Netflix had every intention of "a long life" for that plan at $10. So I ask again: What changed in eight months that requires a 60 percent price hike?

So I spent a long time on the phone with a Netflix spokesman, Steve Swasey. He made these points:
* Six years ago, the "one DVD at a time" plan (no streaming) was $10 a month. Four years ago, it was $9. Today, it's $8. So if you're interested in DVDs only, Netflix's new price is actually the lowest it's ever been.

* The price for unlimited streaming (no DVD rentals) hasn't changed. It's still $8 a month.

* The only prices that have gone up are the DVD plus streaming plans. For one DVD at a time, that's gone from $10 to $16 a month. (For two DVDs at a time plus streaming, it's now $20 a month.)

* Netflix knew that there would be a nasty backlash, and has already taken the subscriber defection into account in its financial forecasts. It still figures it will come out ahead. (I found this part a little creepy.)

I kept saying to him: "O.K., look. In November, $10 a month for one-DVD-plus-streaming seemed like a viable offering. Now, eight months later, you need to charge $16 for the same exact offering. You say your costs haven't changed that much. You say the new studio contracts aren't to blame. The only other possibility I can think of is that your initial $10 pricing was a mistake."

He wouldn't agree. He sort of came close, though, when he said that the unexpected success of the streaming service shifted the balance of power between it and the DVD business. Originally, it was "pay $10 for one DVD-streaming free!" Almost overnight, though, people began thinking of it as, "pay $8 for unlimited streaming-and get one DVD for $2 more!"

"That's not sustainable for the longer life of DVD's," Mr. Swasey said. "We need more revenue. It's a business concern we have to address. We want two separate business units, each side of the service.   We were not able to fulfill the requests for DVDs at that cost."

I'm afraid that's the best answer we're going to get, short of the conspiracy theories. (One of them is that Netflix wants to hasten the demise of the DVD. This price hike will force millions of people to go for streaming only, a more profitable business for Netflix.)

The size and timing of that price leap still don't make sense to me. Especially when Netflix used to be considered such a good-hearted, consumer-focused company. The way it handled this shift feels extraordinarily blunt, ham-handed and emotionally tone-deaf.

"I've had this conversation over and over again for the last 24 hours," said Mr. Swasey. "Yes, 60 percent is a big number. But that increase is only $6 a month more. That's a latte a month. We've gone from an extreme terrific value to a terrific value."

Want to know the worst part? He's right. PCWorld.com has a nice summary of Netflix alternatives. There's Amazon Prime (no DVDs by mail, small streaming selection). Blockbuster by Mail (pricier mailed DVDs, no free streaming at all). Hulu Plus (no DVDs at all). Redbox (no streaming, pay by the day). In other words, even at $16, Netflix still gives you more than anyone else. So whether we like it or not, whether we can explain it or not, Netflix has indeed killed the best entertainment deal on the Web. Mr. Swasey has it half right: it's gone from an extreme terrific value - to an average one.

Source:   http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Why-Netflix-Raised-Its-nytimes-3842223211.html?x=0

Friday, July 15, 2011

Europeans 'Evolved' to Drink More?

Europeans 'evolved' to drink more

Westerners may be genetically programmed to eat more fatty foods and drink more alcohol than those in the east, researchers have claimed.

Scientists at the University of Aberdeen said people in Europe could have evolved to make them more likely to opt for high-fat food and alcohol than those in Asia.

They found a genetic "switch" - a piece of DNA which turns genes on or off within cells - which controls the galanin gene. The gene is switched on in the part of the brain called the hypothalamus and regulates appetite and thirst.

The study, published in the Journal of Neuropsychopharmocology, discovered that the switch was weaker in Asian people compared to Europeans.

The researchers said historically people who ate fatty food and drank alcohol were more likely to survive long, cold winters, as they provided important sources of calories.

Doctor Alasdair MacKenzie, who led the research, said: "The switch controls the areas of the brain which allows us to select which foods we would like to eat and if it is turned on too strongly we are more likely to crave fatty foods and alcohol."

"The fact that the weaker switch is found more frequently in Asians compared to Europeans suggests they are less inclined to select such options."

"Thus, a preference for food with a higher fat and alcohol content would have been important for survival. The negative effects of fat and alcohol we see today would not have mattered so much then as life expectancies were between 30 and 40 years."

"It is possible that during the winter individuals with the weaker switch may not have survived as well in Europe as those with the stronger switch and as a result those in the west have evolved to favour a high fat and alcohol-rich diet."

Source:  http://uk.news.yahoo.com/europeans-evolved-drink-more-142745273.html

Thursday, July 14, 2011

Obama says "ENOUGH!"

Obama vs. Cantor: Tempers flare as debt ceiling negotiations take a dramatic turn

President Barack Obama meets with Congressional leaders regarding the debt ceiling, Wednesday, July 13, 2011, in the Cabinet Room at the White House in Washington. Clockwise, from left are, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor of Va., House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of Calif., House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio, the president, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell of Ky., Senate Majority Whip Richard Durbin of Ill., Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl of Ariz., Budget Director Jack Lew, Vice President Joe Biden, White House Chief of Staff William Daley, and National Economic Council director Gene Sperling. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)
President Obama and House Majority Leader Eric Cantor engaged in a high stakes test of wills at Wednesday's debt ceiling negotiations in the White House, trading dramatic ultimatums in the most intense round of talks yet. With tempers boiling over, Cantor took his grievances public in an unprecedented press conference after Obama issued a veto threat and told the Republican lawmaker he'd had "enough."

The meeting began normally enough, with Obama welcoming the eight congressional leaders from both parties to the White House. He made opening remarks and then called on Cantor. Cantor griped that the number figure in cuts has been shrinking since last week. Last Thursday - when Obama and House Speaker John Boehner proposed a grand bargain that Cantor helped bring down two days later in the face of a revolt from the right - the President had offered $1.7 trillion in savings, Cantor said, as a baseline of agreement.

After the failure of the big $4.5 trillion deal, Cantor took over the negotiations for House Republicans. 

Suspiciously, he said, the baseline started shrinking. "When we were there yesterday somehow the number became 1.6 to 1.7 to 1.8," Cantor said he told the President. "So all of a sudden we are now drifting further downward and today we now look to be below $1.4 trillion." Democratic sources say the number, which came from the talks led by Biden - talks that collapsed when Cantor walked away from them two weeks ago - hasn't changed. It has always been $1.5 trillion as a base with an additional $200 billion in health care savings that Republicans wanted and that the Administration had agreed to push for with congressional Democrats.

But Cantor wasn't done. Not only was the baseline number shrinking, he said, but the details had changed: the White House wanted $80 billion in Medicare spending and another $50 billion to fix the dual eligible problem in the Prescription Drug Program. "That's something we never agreed to in the Biden talks," Cantor said.

The President replied that though the White House still advocated for the $1.7 trillion figure, House and Senate Democrats could not support it, especially without revenue increases. The President added that the new conditions also came from congressional Democrats. "Maybe they ought to get it straight and see if they can get to $1.7 trillion," Cantor told reporters in an unprecedented press conference outside of House votes in the Speakers Lobby after the White House meeting. (See TIME's graphic: "Is College Worth It?")

Given that the two sides are so far apart - House Republicans have long demanded the value of any increase to the federal borrowing limit be offset by deficit reductions, and it will take at least a $2.4 trillion hike to get through 2012 - Cantor offered to back off his insistence that there be only one debt ceiling vote. (Some context: up until this point House leadership aides had always said that the reason they were resistant to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's suggestion of multiple votes is because they knew more than one vote would never pass their conference - ie, they didn't consider it a concession, but a necessity.) "And so, I said, 'Really, Mr. President, if you look at where we are right now we are very far apart," Cantor told reporters. "And if you want the full $2.4 trillion increase and you won't sign anything else, I don't know if we can get there. And so, I said I was willing to come off of my insistence that there be one vote that perhaps we could avoid default. That's when he got very agitated."

Democratic sources coming out of the meeting allege that Cantor rudely interrupted the President three times - an accusation Cantor's staff hotly disputes ("Eric waits to be recognized before speaking to the President," says Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring). Democratic sources say that it was the third interruption that sparked the President's temper.

The following paraphrased account of what President Obama said next is cobbled together from Democratic and Republican sources:

What we're seeing here confirms what the American people think is the worst about Washington: that everyone is more interested in posturing and political positioning and protecting their base than solving real problems. Eric, I could get well above the numbers the GOP is talking about with revenue increases. I am not afraid to veto this and I will take that message and defend it to the American people. If we default, it will be a tax increase on every American. My responsibility is to the American people. I have reached the point where I say, 'Enough.' I have sat here long enough and no other President - Ronald Reagan wouldn't sit here like this. I've reached my limit. We've reached the point where something's got to give. You've either got to compromise on your dollar for dollar insistence or you compromise on the big deal, which means raising taxes. Eric, don't call my bluff. I will go to the American people on this. This may bring my presidency down, but I will not yield on this.

According to Cantor, Obama then shoved back his chair and stormed out of the room. Democrats present at the meeting said there was no shoving or storming involved, he simply got up and said, "I'll see you tomorrow." (See TIME's photoessay: ("Showdown in Wisconsin")

"I was somewhat taken aback because, you know, I was compromising," Cantor told reporters. A Democratic source involved in the talks scoffed at Cantor's "compromise." "We're not a banana republic," the source said. "We're not going to deal with this every three to six months. If you think it's hard now imagine how hard it'll be in the middle of an election."

The episode illustrates how far apart the two sides remain, even as the nation stands at the brink. But perhaps almost as troubling is Cantor's litigation of this tension in the press. I have never seen negotiations broadcast so openly. It's not a good sign. For every major successful bill I've covered on the Hill - Medicare Part D, the Bush tax cuts, the 2005 energy bill, CAFTA, the pension overhaul, TARP, the stimulus and health care reform - the principals always came out of the room and said, 'We're making progress,' or 'Nice try, but I'm not going to negotiate with you,' or even, 'I'm not going to negotiate with myself.'

An agreement on raising the debt ceiling will not come from winning a spin war. If talks collapse, both sides will be blamed and whatever they're saying now really won't matter much in the face of economic disaster. The only solution at this point is to bite the bullet and draft a deal everyone is unhappy with. 

And the more public the process is - both for Cantor and the President - the harder it will become to reach a deal behind closed doors. Don't get me wrong, I like getting the story as much as the next reporter. And if something big happens, we usually find out. But when talks blow up there's a real risk: if negotiators can't trust each other not to snipe in the press - and this goes for both Cantor and the President, who has given his fair share of press conferences during this - how can they trust each other to join arms and enact something as painful as deficit reduction?

Wednesday, July 13, 2011

51 States?!? 'California' & 'South California'

51st state? Small step forward for long-shot 'South California' plan

 

A Republican member of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors wants his county and 12 others to secede from California and form the 51st state. His colleagues gave him an unenthusiastic go ahead Tuesday to explore the idea.


An effort to turn 13 southern California counties into the nation's 51st state took a small step forward Tuesday but remains an extremely long shot, say experts. 

Four members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors agreed Tuesday to allow a fifth member to convene a statewide meeting on the subject in the fall. Each of the four supervisors stated their objections to the secession idea, but went ahead and approved the idea of at least talking about it when Supervisor Jeff Stone said he would “personally see to it” that private funding, not public money, would be used to hold the meeting.

Since the days of the gold rush, more than 220 campaigns to split California into halves or thirds have been tossed around. Mr. Stone's vision involves persuading 13 counties to secede from the state, which he says raids local coffers to plug budget gaps.

Stone's idea has some merit, some analysts say. It addresses the problematic balance of power between Sacramento and California localities, as well as the political reality that the 13 counties in Stone's secession drive are far more conservative than the rest of the state. But the vision remains legally and politically unrealistic, many add, and is perhaps not the best solution to the problems it seeks address.

“Even if everyone in the 13 counties approved of partition, it would still require the approval of the California Legislature. Though theoretically possible, such approval is practically impossible,” says Jack Pitney, professor of government at Claremont McKenna College.

Nothing like Stone's plan has happened since West Virginia broke off from Virginia during the Civil War – and then “only because a rump legislature approved after the regular legislature joined the Confederacy,” says Professor Pitney.

Stone's South California would not include Los Angeles. In addition to Riverside County, the counties targeted for secession would be Fresno, Imperial, Inyo, Kern, Kings, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Orange, San Bernardino, San Diego, and Tulare, which include about 13 million people total.

Republicans account for the majority of registered voters in all but two of the 13 counties – San Bernardino and Imperial. For that reason, the idea has merit, says Robert Stern, president of the Center for Governmental Studies.

He says the real division would not one between northern and southern California, but internal and coastal California. "This would divide the state in a way that makes political sense: liberals in coastal California and conservatives in east California," he adds. "It would allow the liberals to increase taxes to pay for those services they want, and the conservatives to reduce regulations and taxes in their state.”

Others are not so convinced that the division would be a good thing.

“Secession would be like a divorce, which typically leaves both spouses worse off economically. And like a divorce, it would be bad for the kids,” says Pitney. “The new state would now be responsible for services that California provides, such as regional centers for the disabled. And both sides would have to work out difficult issues, such as ‘custody’ of the University of California at Riverside and other state facilities.”

The plan did not receive enthusiastic approval at the public board meeting, either. Several of about a dozen, three-minute comments from local residents agreed with Stone’s comments that California is extremely hard to govern and needs some kind of overhaul. But some called him names and said they hoped his idea would flop. Some of the supervisors agreed to Stone’s motion to hold a meeting only because he agreed not to use public monies or staff time to convene it, and because the discussions would include other reforms.

Splitting the state is the wrong answer to the right issue, says James Mayer, executive director of California Forward, a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization working to bring government closer to the people.

“Indeed, California is too big, too diverse and too complex to be micromanaged by a dysfunctional legislature in the capital,” he says via e-mail.

But the answer, he adds, is to get the state to devolve more of its authority to localities, not to secede. His organization has spent the past two years holding gatherings all over the state to explore ways to give community-level government more authority and responsibility so they can tailor public programs to be responsive and effective in their communities.

“The governor and the Legislature – mostly motivated out of a desire to resolve the state's structural fiscal crisis – has started the process of shifting responsibilities to counties," he adds. "This evolution will take time, and much more needs to happen if it is going to deliver better results.”
In the meantime, Stone's secession bid could lead to useful conversation on the subject of what makes California so difficult to govern.

“In this case, even if secession does not occur – which is highly likely will not – it is worth talking about the reasons the idea is being floated at all,” says Jessica Levinson, director of political reform for the Center for Governmental Studies. “Is California too big to govern? Should we change the way we govern ourselves? Should we have more legislators, who are hopefully, more responsive to their constituents' needs? Should we have at-large elections? Proportional representation? Should we get rid of term limits so people get to know their legislators better?”

Beer Drinkers Beware! Government Shutdown Forces Beer Shutdown!

Shutdown forces MillerCoors to pull beer from shelves

Posted by: Eric Roper Updated: July 13, 2011 - 1:41 PM

Updated at 1:40 p.m.

Miller Time in Minnesota is over -- until lawmakers reach a budget deal.
The state's government shutdown, now in its 13th day, will soon force MillerCoors to pull its beer from Minnesota liquor stores, bars and restaurants. A state official says the law requires the company to stop selling products like Coors Light, Miller Lite and Blue Moon imminently.

"I would suspect within days to see that product leave the shelves," said Doug Neville, a spokesman for the Department of Public Safety.

A MillerCoors spokesman said they are fighting the decision, which would decimate one of its largest markets in the country.

“Right now we are exploring all options that are available to us," said spokesman Julian Green. "We are currently in discussions and hoping that we can get a resolution with the state, with the agency that enforces the sale ... of alcohol.”

Neville says MillerCoors must remove the beer because they did not renew their brand label registration with the state before the shutdown began. By law, brewers must renew those registrations -- which show the label on each brand of beer -- every three years.

The company tried to renew in mid-June, but the process got delayed when they wrote a check for too much money. Green said they sent in a new check, which the state received on June 27, but nonetheless got a letter three days later saying their brand licenses had expired.

“We believe we’ve followed all applicable state laws on this," Green said.

Neville said his agency has asked MillerCoors to develop a plan to remove the product from shelves and cease their distribution. He added that Anheuser-Busch will face a similar problem if the shutdown extends to October.

Green said they are not currently working on that plan, hoping they can first overturn the decision.
The development follows news that hundreds of bars and liquor stores across the state are slowly running out of alcohol because they were unable to renew their state-issued purchase cards. But eliminating MillerCoors could have a much larger impact, since it would apply to nearly every liquor retailer in the state.

Mike Madigan, with Minnesota Beer Wholesalers Association, says MillerCoors products represent a 38 percent share of the beer market in Minnesota.

A spokesman for Leinenkugel, which is owned by MillerCoors, says they handle their registration separately and it is good until 2013.

Here is a list of the beers that are affected:

Blue Moon Pale Moon Belgian Style Pale Ale, Coors Banquet, Coors Light, Coors Light 3.2, Foster’s Lager Beer, Foster’s Premium Ale, Grolsch Amber Ale, Grolsch Blonde Lager, Grolsch Light Lager, Grolsch Premium Lager, Hamm’s, Hamm’s Genuine Draft Style, Hamm’s Special Light, Henry Weinhard’s Dark, Henry Weinhard’s Hefeweizen, Henry Weinhard’s Pale Ale, Henry Weinhard’s Private Reserve, Icehouse Beer, Keystone Light Beer 3.2, Killians Irish Red 3.2, MGD Light 64, Mickey’s Ice Ale, Mickey’s Malt Liquor, Miller Genuine Draft, Miller High Life 12/16 oz can, Miller High Life Ice, Miller High Life Light 12 oz can, Miller Lite 3.2%, Miller Lite Beer, Milwaukee’s Best #1 , Milwaukee’s Best Ice, Milwaukee’s Best Light #1 3.2, Molson Canadian, Molson Canadian Light, Molson Golden, Molson Ice, Molson XXX, Olde English 800 Malt Liquor, Sparks Light

Source:  http://www.startribune.com/politics/blogs/125490398.html

Chuck Norris has nothing on these Rangers!

Army Ranger receives Medal of Honor


By Kathleen Curthoys - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Jul 12, 2011 15:17:20 EDT
Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Arthur Petry received the Medal of Honor on Tuesday from President Obama, who said “This could not be happening to a nicer guy or a more inspiring family.”

Petry, 31, is the second living soldier on active duty to receive the Medal of Honor for actions during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

“This is a historic occasion,” Obama said. “This is only the second time … since Vietnam that a recipient of the Medal of Honor in an ongoing conflict has been able to accept this medal in person.”
Petry, his wife Ashley, and family members and fellow soldiers gathered in the East Room of the White House for the ceremony.

Army leaders and Vice President Biden also attended the ceremony in the East Room, which was packed with family, friends, members of the 75th Ranger Regiment and former Medal of Honor recipients. Among them was former Staff Sgt. Sal Giunta, the first living recipient of the medal from the current wars, wearing a dark suit and a goatee. He was awarded the medal last year and has since left the Army.

Petry has had eight deployments to Afghanistan and Iraq, with a total of 28 months deployed.
Petry and fellow Rangers from 2nd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment were conducting a daytime raid to capture an enemy target in Paktya, Afghanistan, on May 26, 2008.

MEDAL OF HONOR RECIPIENTS

 

Army Sgt. 1st Class Leroy Petry is the ninth service member to be awarded the Medal of Honor for actions in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The first living recipient of the Medal of Honor for the wars is former Staff Sgt. Salvatore Giunta.
The first seven were awarded posthumously.

Spc. Ross McGinnis, Sgt. 1st Class Paul Smith, Navy Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael Monsoor and Marine Cpl. Jason Dunham were honored posthumously for their actions in Iraq.

Staff Sgt. Robert Miller, Sgt. 1st Class Jared Monti and Navy Lt. Michael Murphy were honored posthumously for their actions in Afghanistan.
He and Master Sgt. Steven Walter, first sergeant for 2nd Battalion’s Headquarters and Headquarters Company, were to clear another target building while an assault force cleared the primary target. One of the assault squads needed help clearing their building, so Petry diverted to join them.

Petry and Pfc. Lucas Robinson moved to clear the outer courtyard. The enemy positioned outside fired on Petry and Robinson as they crossed an open area. Petry was shot in both legs and Robinson was hit in his side armor plate. They took cover while Sgt. Daniel Higgins came into the courtyard to help them.

An enemy grenade landed a few meters away from them, and the blast wounded Higgins and Robinson. Two more Rangers, Staff Sgt. James Roberts and Spc. Christopher Gathercole came to their aid.

Another enemy grenade landed near the wounded men. Petry grabbed the grenade and threw it away from the other soldiers. As the grenade detonated, Petry’s hand was lost. He put a tourniquet on his own arm and called on the radio to report what happened.

Roberts, Higgins and Robinson returned fire, killing the enemy. Gathercole was killed during the fighting.

Petry was medevaced and taken to a hospital in Germany, then returned to the U.S. for treatment. He now has a prosthetic hand, and still is trying to recover from the wounds to his legs.
Last year, he re-enlisted indefinitely in the Army rather than retire.

Petry remains a member of the 75th Ranger Regiment and is attached to Special Operations Command, serving at Joint Base Lewis-McChord, Wash., as a liaison for the SOCOM Care Coalition. He works with Rangers who have been wounded in the warzone.

A native of Santé Fe, N.M. Petry joined the Army in September 1999.  His previous awards include two Bronze Stars, a Purple Heart, three Army Commendation Medals, two Army Achievement Medals, the National Defense Service Medal, three Army Good Conduct Medals, the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Combat Star, Iraq Campaign Medal with Combat Star, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal and others.

The Medal of Honor is the nation’s highest award for valor.

Source:  http://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/07/army-medal-of-honor-leroy-petry-071211/