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/

What Happens if U.S. Defaults? Well... hopefully your rates are fixed.

Good Question: What Happens If The U.S. Goes Into Default?


Reporting Jason DeRusha
MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO)When it comes to credit, we all have our limit. And the U.S. government has maxed out its $14.3 trillion debt ceiling. So what happens if the limit isn’t raised? What happens if the United States can’t pay its bills?

A political argument over reigning in government spending has turned a rather routine move into high-stakes drama. Congress has raised the debt ceiling 74 times since 1962 and 11 times since 2001, according to congressional research.

“It’s a mess,” said Sterling Smith, a St. Paul-based market analyst.

He said, if the United States didn’t raise the debt ceiling, it would essentially be in “default” on its loans.

“We would not be paying interest on the bonds or those that were outstanding,” said Smith, “so if you owned a treasury bond, you would not collect your interest.”

According to President Barack Obama, tens of billions of dollars of Social Security and veterans checks would be in jeopardy.

“I cannot guarantee that those checks go out,” said Obama, “if we haven’t resolved this issue. There may not be the money in the coffers to do it.”

“I think that is more political brinkmanship and some scare tactics than the reality of it because the government does take in a lot of money and can meet those immediate obligations to the citizenry,” said Smith.

He did say that it would force some very tough decisions, because the government would have to balance its budget immediately: and stop spending more than we take in.

“They’re going to have to make tough decisions, and they’ll have to do it on a dime, very quickly,” he said.

Smith said he would expect to see drastic cuts to defense spending rather than cuts to programs like Medicare or Social Security.

More importantly, the world would be watching.

“That would strain our markets, because U.S. debt is the biggest thing traded in the world,” said Smith.

“Right now we pay 3 percent on $14 trillion of debt. That’s a lot of money. But imagine if interest rates would normalize at 6 or 7 percent — 7 percent of 14 trillion? That’s $1 trillion just in interest payments.”

Jason DeRusha Source: Jason DeRusha

Source:  http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2011/07/13/good-question-what-happens-if-the-u-s-goes-into-default/

Tuesday, July 12, 2011

Death by Sun

The universe intrigues me, so why not throw up a "Cosmic" type article?...  I bet this is not in the 1,001 ways to die list. 

Comet's Death by Sun Photographed for First Time


The death of a comet that plunged into the sun was captured on camera this month for the first time in history, scientists say.


The comet met its fiery demise on July 6 when it zoomed in from behind the sun and melted into oblivion as it crashed into the star. It was NASA's Solar Dynamics Observatory (SDO), a satellite orbiting Earth that studies the sun, which witnessed the comet's death-blow.

One of the SDO spacecraft's high-definition imagers "actually spotted a sun-grazing comet as it disintegrated over about a 15 minute period (July 6, 2011), something never observed before," SDO officials said. [See the observatory's image of the comet death]

Comets have been spotted near the sun before, but last week's object was the first to be observed in real-time as it disappeared.

"Given the intense heat and radiation, the comet simply evaporated away completely," SDO officials said.

The comet was a type known to astronomers as a sun-grazing comet because its path brought it extremely close to the sun.

The Solar and Heliospheric Observatory, a joint NASA-European Space Agency spacecraft, also spotted the comet's demise and recorded a video of the event.

"This is one of the brightest sun-grazers SOHO has recorded, similar to the Christmas comet of 1996," SOHO project scientist Bernhard Fleck said in a statement.

SOHO officials said that, because of the angle of the comet's orbit, it passed across the front half of the sun and appeared to brighten as it struck hotter particles above the solar surface.

Sun-grazing comets are relatively common and are also known as Kreutz comets, after the 19th century astronomer Heinrich Kreutz who first showed they were related.

Astronomers suspect that Kreutz comets all began as a single, giant comet that broke apart several centuries ago. 

You can follow SPACE.com Managing Editor Tariq Malik on Twitter @tariqjmalik. Follow SPACE.com for the latest in space science and exploration news on Twitter @Spacedotcom and on Facebook.

Bummer! Netflix raising prices...

Netflix raises DVD, streaming plan price by 60 pct

reuters

On Tuesday July 12, 2011, 3:10 pm EDT
 
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Netflix Inc will raise by 60 percent the monthly price of a plan that lets subscribers watch unlimited movies and video online and get DVDs by mail.
Customers who want both services will pay $7.99 per month to rent one DVD at a time plus $7.99 for unlimited streaming, or a total of $15.98 per month. The previous cost of this plan was $9.99 a month.
"We are separating unlimited DVDs by mail and unlimited streaming into separate plans to better reflect the costs of each and to give our members a choice: a streaming only plan, a DVD only plan or the option to subscribe to both," Netflix Vice President of Marketing Jessie Becker wrote in a company blog post.

"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," Becker wrote.

Netflix announced the new prices on Tuesday. The company did not respond to a request for comment.
Unlimited DVD-only plans will cost $7.99 for one at a time or $9.99 for two at a time.

The changes take effect immediately for new subscribers, and in September for current customers.
The Los Gatos, California-based company started in the United States as a mail-in DVD service. It now offers streaming video on various devices.

(Reporting by Lisa Richwine. Editing by Robert MacMillan)

Source:  http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Netflix-rates-rise-up-to-60-apf-1193781150.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=1&asset=&ccode=

How to get poor quick - this was too good, had to share it :)

This was too good not too share :)

How to get poor quick

If you have had enough of get rich quick schemes, try to see if you can out-do the Jones by beating them to poverty.

yahoofinance
, 11:36, Monday 11 July 2011

This nation is in some ways excellent at getting poor. You will recognise what we're good at when you read some of the items on the list below. In other ways, many of us are just too cynical of so-called professionals to let them tell us what to do with our money.
Or are we? Here are my tips for getting poor faster.

Learn to trust strangers

Give all your money to someone you have never met and know nothing about, and ask him to look after it for you for a while before he secretly passes it to someone else you've never met to look after.
The investment fund industry generally doesn't like people to enquire too closely into the long-term records of its managers. You often won't even be aware who the manager is, as the provider will merely say our "expert, experienced team of managers" or something.

The fact is that the vast majority — no joke — the vast majority of funds underperform their most suitable benchmark over the long-term, whether that's the FTSE 100, the S&P 500, or whatever. There are few talented with proven records, but the rest still get paid a fat lot of cash, and that comes from your funds.

If you want to invest in a fund, check out how the manager has performed over the past ten years at least, and whether he or she tends to stay in one place, because you don't want to try to keep track of that person's movements, and it frequently costs money to sell and then buy another fund.

Borrow your way to poverty

"What do you do when you're short o' cash, Sharpe?"
"Do without, Sir."
"You borrow, Richard."

Sharpe's Rifles, 1993

If you need more money, you just borrow, right? And when that runs out, you borrow some more. That's why our country is doing so well.
The truth is that borrowing leads to an irreversible loss of wealth and the more you borrow, the poorer you will be: not just now and not just while you are paying off your debts — but for the rest of your life. There are very few exceptions.
Don't plan, just spend

When you need or want something, don't think about it too much. Just go and buy it. It'll all work out ok. Right?

Imagine a business doing that. The business doesn't know how much money is coming in and it doesn't know how much it's spending. How likely is it going to survive, and for how long? How rich is this company likely to get?

People are the same. There is no way around it: unless you are the sort who truly lives frugally even when earning lots of money, there is no replacement for budgeting.

Find an industry that is invented purely to take your money

No, this time I'm not talking about the finance industry, but one that's even more efficient at taking your money: the gaming — or gambling — industry. It is your moral duty, as someone who wants to get poor quick, to go to the casino right now.
Industry turnover approaching £100bn in the UK alone is produced by games mathematically designed to slowly (or, if you're lucky, not so slowly) relieve you of your wealth.

This is one of the few industries to boom during economic troubles. Like debt-management companies and loan sharks.

Steer clear unless you want to get poor quick.

Buy into enthusiasm and heavy tactics

If a bank manager, cold caller or any other person who will financially benefit from you buying something through them is particularly insistent and enthusiastic about a product, naturally they are enthusiastic for you, right?

That's right. They have heard of your mission to get poor quick. That's why they're selflessly being heavy handed and want you to sign now before you think too much.
Why is it that some the same companies spend tens of thousands of pounds plastering adverts over every second website time and again? Are they spending this money to tell you about their most cost-effective products? No.

If you assume that they are pushing their most expensive confusing and ultimately wealth-grabbing products, you will frequently be correct. The more they advertise, the more likely it is that this product is not the cheapest of its kind. The more complicated, astounding or "innovative" it seems to be, the greater the chance that other products will be more suitable for you.

"Innovative" is a particularly ugly word in finance. Innovations tend to make the financial institutions richer at the customers' expense.

Buy into a get rich-quick idea

Here's one that really works! Just try it for yourself. Search for the most unbelievable, fantastic and especially secret idea that makes you wonder why on earth the investment industry and venture capitalists aren't doing it, or why the CEO of this firm hides behind dodgy websites or brochures with no contact details instead of getting on Working Lunch to talk about this amazing opportunity for investment.

Get rich quick schemes will strip you of your wealth in no time. Don't worry that you'll accidentally succeed and set back your chances of living in poverty for a generation; I guarantee you'll be poor before you can say "Brewster's millions".

It's no effort to be poor

"Trying is the first step towards failure."
"Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is: never try."
"If something's hard to do then it's not worth doing."


Homer Simpson

That's right. Sit back. Relax. Do nothing. Don't switch accounts. Put your feet up at work. Watch a bit more TV. Your income will steadily fall against inflation as your boss tries to get rid of you through attrition.
But watch out. By far the most likely way to take a wrong turn onto that road to the hellishness of money security, wealth and even (shudder) riches is to work hard. It's just not worth it. Is it?

Source:  http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/How-get-poor-quick-yahoofinanceuk-431531635.html

A Divided Government = Debt Default. The Message: Gamble with finances and pass the blame.



Leaders set the tone.  Leaders, should be leading by example.  Our leaders need to stop with the double standards.  Otherwise, we are all at risk of a new wave of moral issues.

Gambling with finances is no joke.  It is utterly irresponsible, and passing the blame does NO GOOD.  Right now, the United States is facing a daunting deficit with a clock ticking down towards a default.  In the center of all of this is a divided government, politicians passing the blame and threatening an unprecedented default on our nations obligations.

Don't forget, these are OBLIGATIONS.  Think of it as a mortgage on a home you bought last year.  You've committed yourself to pay that mortgage and in return you have a debt and a home to live in.  Now, after living and enjoying this home for a year, you decide to toy with the idea of defaulting on your payments.  Sound familiar (i.e. making homes affordable, mortgage crisis, foreclosure crisis?).

The ideas floating around our country, straight from our governmental leaders, is simple.  Gamble with debt.  Why not?  We are already in a financial crisis, why not follow the leader?  Do as my government does...  On the flip side, bet your A$$ the government will say "do as I say not as I do."

Wow, the moral dilemma facing our country is terrible.  We shouldn't even be here.  Basic guiding principles should have kicked in long ago.  But here is the kicker, our government will get this figured out.  But at what cost?  How many people across this country (and this world for that matter) will simply say "forget this, if they could risk not paying their debt obligations then I'm going to do the same."

Leaders, listen up.  The ripple effects of this political-posturing will be long and painful for our world.  In these last few weeks of smoke and mirrors, I urge you to consider these effects.  Please, for the love of our country, strike a new tone.  Remind us as to why we elected you and turn us all into believers, not naysayers.


For a reference to more on this subject, read the article below.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2011/07/mcconnell-blasts-obama-over-debt-talks/1

Monday, July 11, 2011

Problem: Debt Ceiling, or something else?

In less than 1 month, the US Government is warning the world that it could default on its debt obligations. Wow.

I've come to learn that politicians do not have it easy. They live in an artificial working world that is beyond any single one of them. Each party lives to satisfy its own, yet neither party has any definitive principles. That is one of the downsides to a pluralistic world in which we live in. Too many people with the NIMBY attitude.

I pose a simple question: Is the debt ceiling the problem, or is it something else?

Either way, I think most Americans are sick and tired of the blame game. It's time for Congress to sit down and figure out a long-term plan for our country, and stick to it. This constant nearsightedness is down right wrong, childish, and potentially dangerous to our society as a whole.

Elections happen too often in my opinion, a good and bad thing under different operating environments. When politicians are constantly changing their platforms and votes, it is only damaging to the American Citizens. At the same time, we need a method in which to change up our leaders when we feel they are not holding our interests at heart.

All of this leads to a grey world. One that is hardly understandable. Frustration with our government cannot be blamed on any one individual. Instead, we must all look in the mirror to reevaluate the vision we have for our country, and the world we live in. For our children, and our grandchildren. As cliche' as that may sound, it needs to be done.

The USA is a wonderful country. Our beliefs on freedom ring throughout the whole world, but we have to be better about a lot of things. This debt ceiling debate is just 1 prime example. It is time to cowboy up people. Stop stressing out the financial markets, and stop stressing out the American people. Take an honest approach at our countries biggest problems, bring in the academics and the workers in the trenches, and figure out a better path forward. Our problem is not going to be answered solely by our politicians. It's unfortunate, but it is true. How can it when they have the next election to worry about? Short term answers never solved anything. It's time for long term solutions with guiding principles that will see us through the following centuries, NOT years.

So, I leave you now with my take on what it means to be an American. I love my country, and I serve it proudly. I trust in our leaders, but only because I trust in my people. We put them in charge, so it is our duty to stand by their decisions. If we feel they need help and advice on next steps, then we need to step forward with our firm beliefs. I hate walking in circles and feeling like we are no better off today than we were 10,20, or 30 years ago. Change is inevitable, progress is optional.