text:
Press Briefing by Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, 9/30/2010
MR. GIBBS: Good afternoon. Any questions today? (Laughter.) Cool. (Laughter.)
Mr. Feller, take us away.
Q Thank you, sir. Can you talk about what kind of loss it will be for the White House when Rahm leaves and how you plan to deal with it?
MR. GIBBS: Resisting the temptation to comment on --
Q I got a little caught in the rain.
MR. GIBBS: -- Jake's wet T-shirt contest impersonation.
But let me say this, Ben. I know there's --
Q Always keeping it classy.
MR. GIBBS: I know there's -- I know there's a lot of stuff out there. I will say this -- I've got no personnel announcements today, but I will say that the President will have a personnel announcement tomorrow at 11:05 a.m. from the East Room. We will save the specifics for then, and we'll be happy to get into a long conversation about that. I don't have any news on that to make --
Q But why the charade? I mean, everyone knows what this is about. Why can't you just tell us?
MR. GIBBS: Lynn, I read your paper. I've read a number of papers. I'm here to tell you the President will have a personnel announcement tomorrow, and at that point he will deliver that news.
Q Has the chief of staff told the President that he's leaving?
MR. GIBBS: I'm not going to get into that.
Q Why is this raising to the level -- sometimes you make personnel announcements just by paper, you make a release. Why is this announcement rising to the level of a personal announcement by the President?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I -- without getting into what the announcement will be --
Q When people listen to this, this will sound like a game since we're talking about Rahm Emanuel's departure to run for the mayor of Chicago.
MR. GIBBS: Lynn, come up here. (Laughter.) You should brief, and we can -- look, guys --
Q I'm just trying to move the ball along here.
MR. GIBBS: We all have deadlines; I understand that. I'm happy to talk about a whole host of subjects today. I am not going to move a whole lot on what I've already said.
Q So the news report is accurate that he is leaving to run for mayor of Chicago.
MR. GIBBS: I am not running for mayor --
Q I'm talking about Rahm.
MR. GIBBS: Ms. Compton.
Q Will he also possibly have two announcements -- somebody coming, somebody going?
MR. GIBBS: I would be -- would bet on having two announcements, yes.
Q Will we hear from the personnel?
MR. GIBBS: Some of them, yes.
Q Can you answer Ben's question, though? If he were to leave, what effect would that have on the White House?
MR. GIBBS: I don't do hypotheticals, Chip.
Q More broadly, a lot of people are leaving -- Orszag left, Romer left, Larry's leaving, Rahm is leaving. There are reports about General Jones; Secretary Gates has said 2011 is a good time for him to leave. There are a lot of people -- key members of the national security team, key members of the economic team. Could you just comment on that?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, and I've said this a number of times. Look, I think two years in, if you look back historically, is a time in which people have come into government service at the beginning of an administration and leave to go back to academia, or business, or to retire, or go into other pursuits. And I think it is in many ways the normal rhythm of an administration to do.
We have -- I think I've said this to a number of you all. Folks that have worked in here for the last two years have managed to pack four or six or eight or 10 years' worth of work into those two. The economic team has dealt with the type of -- a series of crises, from housing to financial stability to the Recovery Act to unemployment -- I would point out -- done so in a way -- if you look at the news today on AIG, we are -- if the common stock that the American government holds in AIG were sold today, that investment would net the federal government $20 billion.
As probably as late as a year ago, most people presumed that AIG would be a $180 billion loss, and the financial sector would cost the government a great deal of money. The financial sector, as a portion of TARP, is likely to provide a profit for the government in terms of its investment.
So I think, Jake, in many ways it is the natural course of the way this town works and that administrations work. People have given of their time and of their lives. They've been away from their loved ones, their families -- a number of people that you mentioned. I know Larry moved here while his family stayed in Massachusetts, and I think, in many ways, again, it's the normal cycle and course of doing business.
Q Is it abnormal to stay longer than two years?
MR. GIBBS: No -- look, I mean, everybody has -- look, in Larry's case, there were -- there are tenure issues, which is not something that can just be waived. So I think in many ways, look, some people will stay longer, some people will leave. Again, I think it's largely -- I think it is much more of the normal course and the rhythm -- you look at NEC directors -- you look at somebody like -- you mentioned Secretary Gates who has -- who served the last part, I think it was the last two years of the previous administration. And I hope Secretary Gates doesn't get mad at me for telling this story, but I remember being backstage during the transition when President-elect Obama saw Mrs. Gates and shook his new Defense Secretary's hand and looked at his wife and said, "I'm sorry." (Laughter.)
So, look, there's a sacrifice that is borne by people like that that is -- that just comes to fruition.
Q What about press secretaries?
MR. GIBBS: They have an amazing stamina. (Laughter.) No announcements on that, either.
Q Can you just tell us -- I think it will help everybody out -- what Pete Rouse means to his role that he's played, and tell us little about --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I will talk broadly about Pete. Look, Pete is -- don't roll your eyes, Ms. Sweet.
Q So you're willing to talk about Pete, who is in line for what? So Pete will -- I mean, this is part of what I'm saying, can we cut through the --
MR. GIBBS: He is -- I'm going to be oblique, I'm sorry, Ms. Sweet. I'm sure you -- because you are so intricately connected to sources throughout this White House, I feel like I am encumbering you very little in the reporting of your information. (Laughter.)
Right? The snickers are because what I just said was very true.
Q I wish.
MR. GIBBS: No, it's not.
Q Oh, I wish.
MR. GIBBS: Look, Pete has been with Senator-elect, Senator, President-elect, and now President Obama. There's a complete loyalty and trust with somebody like Pete. There is -- Pete's strategic sense has played a big part of the direction of virtually every big decision that's made inside of this White House. So I think the type of trust that the President and others throughout this administration have in Pete is enormous.
Q Robert, the norm is normally after the midterm elections. When you talking historically in the norm -- people leave during this two-year period -- it's normally after the midterm elections. So this is not necessarily the norm or the natural process.
MR. GIBBS: April, I disagree. Well, in the event that the chief of staff were to leave, I assume it would be because of, say, fairly extraordinary circumstances --
Q Like running for mayor --
MR. GIBBS: -- like if the mayoral race in one of the largest cities in the country were to happen to be an open seat. So, look, but I think if you look at people like Dr. Summers and others are not -- they're here through the end of the year. The notion somehow that Larry is not up there right now doing work is just not true.
Q Robert, does the President see these departures as an opportunity to bring in some sort of fresh blood that might have a better relationship with Republicans?
MR. GIBBS: I will say we -- I don't have any -- obviously there's a process to pick a new replacement for Larry. Obviously we filled the directorship at the CEA and --
Q But is that a consideration, looking -- during a time when the city is so divided?
MR. GIBBS: I think what the President wants most from his economic team is the best economic advice that a President can get. I think there's a policy process that has to be run and there's a whole host of things that have to be taken into account along with that.
Q Robert, will the President's personnel announcement tomorrow include an endorsement?
MR. GIBBS: That I don't know.
Q Okay, and a couple of questions non-staff-related. Would the President sign the House currency bill that landed on his desk?
MR. GIBBS: I don't know the degree to which inside of here that legislation has been evaluated. Obviously it has at least another step -- well, at least one more step to go in the Senate. I think you heard the President discuss yesterday his concern, as he has in the past. You've heard Secretary Geithner express it. I think lawmakers on Capitol Hill share the same serious concern that the President and Secretary Geithner have. It is -- we have said for quite some time that the currency is undervalued and that reforms need to be undertaken. And I think -- again, I think there's -- in a, as Dan said, in a divided town, I think there is a seriousness of concern about this issue.
Q But does that mean -- the President has said frequently that he's concerned about China's currency. Would he sign this particular bill?
MR. GIBBS: I don't have any clarity on that.
Q And just the last follow-up, on AIG, did I hear correctly -- did you say you're expecting to make a profit on the AIG investment?
MR. GIBBS: Well, no, what I said was if -- where the value of the -- they're converting preferred to common. It obviously is going to take some time to register to get into the system and ultimately to be sold. That's not a process that happens, given the volume, overnight.
If you took what we owned and what we possessed in common, and sold it at this morning's price, that represent -- that would have represented a profit on the full amount of $180 billion invested in AIG that represent a $20 billion profit.
The President, at his economic daily briefing today, got some -- got an update both on AIG and as -- the waning hours of the TARP program. But, again, it was talked about how, you know, I think the estimate -- the mid-session review estimate for TARP was a deficit cost of $349 billion. I think right now the briefing that the President got had that number at under $50 billion. And I think that number is likely only to improve as -- with money from auto companies. The financial sector itself will produce a profit. And again, the AIG money, if the common were sold today, would represent a profit of about $20 billion.
Yes, sir.
Q David Axelrod said something that the President has been saying for a long time, which is that Republicans are holding the middle-class tax cuts hostage. As I understand it, Democrats haven't introduced a bill in the Senate and the Republicans have. Wouldn't there have to be a bill that Republicans are threatening to block or blocking before anything is being held hostage?
MR. GIBBS: I don't know what bills have been introduced in the Senate. Obviously, I think the posture of -- I don't think the bill would have to be the existence of -- I think the rhetoric alone from Senator McConnell and others have been that the price of -- there's a $700 billion price tag on moving forward on the tax cuts for the middle class. That's the tax cuts for the wealthy.
Q So the posture is enough, it doesn't have to be actual --
MR. GIBBS: Absolutely. And look -- we've -- I said this -- it's now been a couple of weeks, obviously, but we agree on the middle-class part of this or so they say. Their price tag for the middle class was the $700 billion. We could have passed the middle class alone, provided some much needed certainty to the economy and to middle-class families and had -- still had plenty of time to debate the $700 billion price tag for the other cuts.
Q Why not do that? Why not introduce the bill --
Q Why not get Republicans on the record?
Q -- and force Republicans to filibuster it?
MR. GIBBS: They were unwilling to do that. They were unwilling to --
Q But you can introduce a bill is the point. You can introduce the bill.
MR. GIBBS: Guys, my original answer was I don't think the bill is the existence of the fight. It is that -- look, John Boehner said --
Q You're not even -- you're not even fighting with them.
MR. GIBBS: But John Boehner said quite clearly on Sunday that he would go along with the middle-class stuff, right? Then fury rained down, and quickly we crawfished back over to, wait, wait, wait, middle class -- the price for doing middle class is tax cuts for the wealthy. And we could have done middle class.
Q Isn't the real problem the fact that there are Democrats who agree with Republicans on the issue? There are 47 --
MR. GIBBS: I think we could have done middle class, but the Republicans weren't interested.
Q You don't need the support of the Republicans in the House to pass anything.
MR. GIBBS: No, but to play along with your -- if a bill has to become -- you got to pass them in both houses, and you are not going to get 60 votes to go and just do middle-class tax cuts, were you?
Q No, but I guess my question is, why not try? If you actually think that this is a winning campaign issue --
MR. GIBBS: Because the Republicans were -- Republicans said they weren't going to do it.
Q You don't know unless you --
MR. GIBBS: No, you -- come on, Chuck. (Laughter.)
Q No, but, I mean --
MR. GIBBS: You were under the impression there were like six Republicans that were going to break?
Q No, but there were Republicans --
Q You have to have a bill --
Q -- there were Republicans who have walked back on unemployment extension.
Q -- in order to get them -- why not introduce the bill?
MR. GIBBS: The existence of the bill isn't the -- isn't some great starting line for this debate. We've been debating tax cuts without -- I mean, a bill you could write on the back of a napkin. We could -- that's not -- the notion that you didn't have a vehicle to do this is --
Q Do you think it's responsible to wait until the lame-duck session to do this?
MR. GIBBS: Do I think it's responsible to wait for the lame-duck session to pass middle-class tax cuts? No. I thought the Republicans were irresponsible and held the middle-class tax cuts hostage.
Q Should Democrats stay -- should the recess be canceled at this point, postponed?
MR. GIBBS: I think we're --
Q The point is you've pushed through --
MR. GIBBS: This wasn't -- Chuck, when you guys are on your show debating tax cuts, you didn't preclude -- you didn't not have that debate because there wasn't a bill in Congress. Let's not, like, get wrung around the pole on bill introduction semantics.
Q But the point is there certainly have been -- there has been legislation in the past that the President firmly believed in and he pushed the House to vote on it even though he didn't know whether he would be able to get the votes in the Senate. You go one step at a time. If you believe in it that strongly, you tell the House, let's push this through. Let's vote on this --
MR. GIBBS: Chip, Chip, there wasn't --
Q -- let's get on the record. Why not get on the record?
MR. GIBBS: There was -- we can't -- Chip, look at the statements from the Senate Republicans. This wasn't going anywhere. They had decided to stop middle-class tax cuts.
Q Neither was cap and trade, but you pushed for the House to get on the record on it.
Q So all they need to do is issue a press release and you guys will back off any fight?
MR. GIBBS: I don't understand your question.
Q All they have to do is say the Republican caucus is not going to support this and Democrats will just say, oh, okay, well, then we're not even going to try?
MR. GIBBS: No, again, Jake, you're making the existence of one piece of legislation the beginning or the end of this entire fight. I think that's kind of a silly concept.
Q You're talking about a bill being held hostage -- it hasn't even been written as far as anybody knows.
MR. GIBBS: Okay, the concept of tax relief for the middle class -- does that make it any less of a hostage because I didn't say it as a bill?
Q Yes, it does make it less of a hostage because there isn't an actual piece of legislation that anybody is trying to push.
Q But you're saying because it can't get through the Senate the Democrats -- the House shouldn't vote on it?
MR. GIBBS: It wasn't going anywhere, Chip.
Q Do you feel that you underestimated the difficulty of getting Democrats to vote for your tax cut proposal, which is middle class but not the rich?
MR. GIBBS: I don't think so, no.
Q So you weren't surprised that 47 Democrats said they wouldn't do it unless --
MR. GIBBS: I don't know how many Democrats support what. I know, Mara --
Q Well, you know how many in the Senate.
MR. GIBBS: Well, I know that -- all you need to know in the Senate was you needed 60 votes to get to a bill and there's 41 Republicans who said they're not going anywhere. Now, I'm not great in math, but 100 minus 41 does not get you to the number, bill or not, in --
Q But that argument applies to the lame-duck session, too.
Q Just to follow up on that, just to follow up on that --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think we're --
Q You're not going to bring it up in lame duck?
Q Hold on for a second --
MR. GIBBS: No, I think -- Chip, I assume it's going to get brought up in the lame duck largely because we have until the 31st to make some big decisions on this.
Q Do you feel -- you're sending Democrats home without the opportunity for them to have said, I voted to extend the middle-class tax cuts. You didn't give them a chance to do that and this is --
MR. GIBBS: Mara, I don't --
Q -- the season when you're trying to draw a contrast with the Republicans. Why not draw a contrast?
MR. GIBBS: Because, Mara, having worked on probably eight U.S. Senate campaigns, I don't think a candidate needs a vote to necessarily say what they support. I think candidates are going to go home and say they support extending only the middle-class tax cuts. I wish the Republicans would agree. I don't think we should spend $700 billion, giving $100,000 tax cuts to millionaires at a time in which we have a budget deficit like it is. I think that's a pretty --
Q You don't think you're putting them at a disadvantage?
MR. GIBBS: No, I think that's a pretty clear statement.
Q Just one last question on this, in terms of the timing -- and there's been so much talk about uncertainty for businesses, they don't know how to plan, they don't know what the tax code is going to be like. These tax cuts have been set to expire for a very long time. Why wait -- why did you wait so long to try to resolve them? You could have had a vote on extending them any time you wanted.
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I don't -- that's a better question for somebody up on Capitol Hill. Mara, I think -- again, I think -- the President's position on extending the tax cuts, he has had the same position on supporting middle-class tax cuts, the middle-class portion of the Bush tax cuts, since I worked for him in 2004. So his position has been very well known on this.
Q Did he ever encourage the leaders on the Hill to take it up earlier?
MR. GIBBS: Not that I'm aware of.
Q Yes, Robert, isn't it an indictment of Democratic control of Congress that not a single spending bill got passed this year?
MR. GIBBS: Well, Mark, I think there -- we've got judges that have sat around for 240 days that passed out of a committee unanimously. There is a system up there that is really broken. There aren't spending bills that are going to make it through the process unless you have 60 votes. That's just the way it is.
Even if the bill hasn't been introduced, that's just the way it is. It's not the way that place should run. It's not what the American people want to see, but it's the way Republicans have acted on Capitol Hill for the entirety of the President's time here in Washington.
This was very clear, right from the very beginning: We're going to say no. We're going to require 60 votes to pass your nominee for head of the GSA. We're going to let judges languish for two-thirds of a year, despite the fact that they've made it through committee on a unanimous vote. That's the way this place works now -- 60 is the new 50. And I don't mean age.
Q So the Democratic leaders who are in charge of those two bodies have no responsibility?
MR. GIBBS: Look, you can't -- we all -- the Senate is -- understand you can't get a spending bill through the process unless or until it goes through the Senate. And when it takes 60 votes just to get on a bill, and there are 41 people that say no, again, you don't have to be a mathematician to subtract 41 from 100 and come up with the fact that nothing's happening.
Q Can I also ask you about Congressman Boehner's proposal that henceforth if you propose a new program, you have to cut a program?
MR. GIBBS: Well, back to the tax debate, I'm happy to look at the $700 billion in spending that --
Q But they would say that's taxing, not spending.
MR. GIBBS: Well -- how does that work on the deficit?
Q But on the question of --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, no, no, let's not -- no, no, but please, Mark, let's not oversimplify. We are a trillion dollars --
Q I have to ask --
MR. GIBBS: No, you do. But there's -- we're a trillion dollars in debt -- or in deficit. We're way past $10 trillion in debt. Let's not oversimplify. Look, the President has supported a pay-as-you-go-program. The President supported a three-year freeze on non-security discretionary spending. The President has -- not because he got help from Capitol Hill on setting up a deficit commission, but had to set one -- hold on, had to set one up. Why? Because the very same people that proposed a deficit commission then filibustered the deficit commission.
Q I understand what you're saying. Do you support or oppose Congressman Boehner's --
MR. GIBBS: We would be happy to support -- as I think many people would -- paying for what you're going to do. Now, that's going to include the $700 billion tax cut, which if you read through the pledge, I think they came up with $16 billion to pay for a $700 billion program. Again, you don't have to be much of a math whiz to figure out that's just cute rhetoric.
Q You talked about the extension of the tax cuts. What is the President telling the congressional leaders what else he wants in the lame-duck session? How ambitious?
MR. GIBBS: I will get a readout of what they're going to -- what they discussed afterwards and we'll send that around.
Q Well, but talk a little bit about the lame-duck session that you're --
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, I think there's -- I mean, obviously there's some important business that I think the President thought we were close to finishing. There are obviously some judicial nominations that the President is keenly aware of and interested in. There's a host of appointments that need to be acted on. Obviously the child nutrition reauthorization is an important thing, and obviously the tax cut legislation. That's not to --
Q The deficit commission --
MR. GIBBS: I don't know what the date is of when they're going to come in. Obviously that's going to be a big part of the conversation. That's not an exhaustive list. And I'll get anything else that they may have talked about.
Q Robert?
MR. GIBBS: Yes, sir.
Q Interior Department came out with new offshore drilling rules today. Does that move us closer to lifting the moratorium?
MR. GIBBS: I think in many ways it likely does. We have -- there are a series of technological and safety reforms that this administration is very serious about implementing that need to be implemented and secured prior to the lifting of that moratorium. Secretary Salazar received Mr. Bromwich's report, and that is a big step forward in getting this process back online.
The President has -- the President does not oppose the offshore exploration for oil. We understand that in the energy environment that we're in, that we -- that no single source is going to light our homes and power our cars and power our businesses. So a whole host of different sources are going to be needed, and one of those sources is going to be offshore oil.
But the President just believes, after what we witnessed with BP, that we need to do this in a way that is technologically safe, technologically proven; that we are fully convinced that safety plans and worst-case scenario plans do mean exactly that; that we don't find ourselves facing and dealing with the situation that we spent a whole long time in the summer dealing with.
Q I have a follow-up on that. Mary Landrieu has got the hold on Jack Lew over this issue. First, what is the President doing to get her to lift her hold on Jack Lew? And --
MR. GIBBS: Well, I will say this --
Q And what kind of problems is it causing in preparing a fiscal 2012 budget?
MR. GIBBS: The budget planning process is underway and should be underway with a director with the type of bipartisan support that Jack has gotten through two committees. I think it is a sad day when somebody is held up with such bipartisan support with the type of experience that's necessary, in an environment where we have to improve our fiscal picture, that that person is held up for something that is completely unrelated to them.
I think it is sad, and I think it's outrageous. The President -- well, Secretary Salazar met with Senator Landrieu to update her on where we are on this situation. But I want to be clear, Roger --
Q When was that?
MR. GIBBS: Yesterday.
Q Tuesday -- he did Tuesday.
MR. GIBBS: I think yesterday -- let me make sure. It was either -- I don't know whether they -- I know they met on Tuesday. Maybe it was Tuesday and not Wednesday. But they've met in the last couple days to get an update on where we are. But, Roger, we're not bargaining the safety of oil drilling away for an appointment that shouldn't be the cause of the type of gridlock that we're used to seeing in Washington.
And I would think people who are concerned about our fiscal picture, who are concerned about where we're heading in this deficit at a time of crisis would not do the type of things that Senator Landrieu is doing.
Q Just following up on that, is Jack Lew on the job in some acting capacity? And would the President consider a recess appointment?
MR. GIBBS: Well, two things, as far as I know, Jack is still at the State Department. Obviously there's a limit to what -- after a nomination but without confirmation, there's a very strict limit to the amount of work he can do.
And as I understand it, the Senate has adjourned but are in some pro forma sessions that might make recess appointments difficult to impossible.
Q Robert, is the Black Farmer issue over?
MR. GIBBS: No, because it hasn't been resolved.
Q But -- and this is a concern -- they're saying that the window is over now because congressional leaders are going back to their districts and starting campaigning for voting, and then once we come back, it's not going to -- if Republicans gain the seats that they believe they're going to gain, Black Farmers are not going to get --
MR. GIBBS: Well, obviously, this is -- on a whole host of things that this administration and many on Capitol Hill think need to be resolved and should be resolved, and now that they've left for recess, will be left for after the election.
Q I asked the President at the last press conference about assurances that there would -- Cobell and the Black Farmer Pigford settlement will be funded, and he didn't give assurances. He said he supports it.
MR. GIBBS: You should call Mitch McConnell.
Q Robert, just two questions.
Q Wait a minute, but I wasn't finished.
Q Rather than -- rather than 15.
Q I was not finished, please.
Q I'm sorry. I thought you were finished.
MR. GIBBS: Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Q You will come back --
MR. GIBBS: It's okay -- just in through the nose, out through the mouth. Yes, sir.
Q Thank you.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, ma'am, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Yes, I interrupted you.
Q Okay, okay. Also on another issue on the NAACP, they're having this big protest for jobs, justice and education this weekend. What does this White House say about that, especially as the President has been working with the NAACP and other civil rights organizations in talking about promoting jobs and making conditions right for jobs? And they are going to have at least 80,000 out here on the weekend protesting. What does the White House say about that?
MR. GIBBS: Well, look, April obviously, this administration, as I've said before, the issue that this President and this administration spend the most time on is the economic recovery -- financial stability, ensuring that small businesses have access to capital so that they can expand and hire new people, creating jobs, ensuring that the Recovery Act, as we end the fiscal year, is doing what it needs to do. That's been the focus of this administration from the first moments of walking in this door, and it continues to be because even as we look at data on a day-by-day basis, like GDP and unemployment claims, obviously there is a recovery that while we're headed in the right direction, as you've heard the President say, is not strong enough and not fast enough. He's frustrated by that, and the President will continue to work through that.
Q Robert, Robert --
Q There's a report out today that the health care reform law was going to force McDonald's to drop coverage for thousands of workers. It's been denied by the company, but it does --
MR. GIBBS: I would say that's -- I will say, Wendell, I don't know what the rest of your question is, but let me interrupt you at that point. If a story is based on the actions of a company that have been denied by the company, I would -- I think that the statement that they I think put out last evening I think is pretty clear, walks that story back to the point of not being accurate.
Q The company said it would be seeking a waiver from a piece of the --
Q Exactly, and --
MR. GIBBS: There were discussions -- look, Jonathan --
Q And that's what I want to get to.
MR. GIBBS: Taking up the mantle of the editor of The Wall Street Journal, let's understand this -- I just want to be clear. Read the company's statement -- discussions with Health and Human Services that happen all the time about different regulations that are involved in the offering of benefits to companies -- again, that happens all the time.
But let's be clear, the statement from McDonald's last night makes the notion that they're about to drop health care for 30,000 people not true.
Q And that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking is if you're concerned that the law has the unintended effect of raising costs by making the -- by raising the minimum standards for health care, which is what McDonald's is concerned about.
MR. GIBBS: Yes, again --
Q And if you're not concerned about that, tell me why.
MR. GIBBS: Well, Wendell, I'm not concerned that this story is true, because, A, the company said it wasn't, and B, the company is working with HHS as companies do --
Q The company said it was not going to drop coverage for these people, but it may have to incur additional cost to raise the minimum standards of health coverage.
MR. GIBBS: But, Wendell, I think -- right, but I think what is important to understand is discussions like that with regulators happen all the time. The crux of that story was whether or not that coverage was going to be dropped, and McDonald's said that that just simply wasn't true.
Q Robert, in the same oblique that you just talked about Pete Rouse without discussing what he might be doing, say, tomorrow or Saturday or beyond that, can you characterize the tenure of Rahm Emanuel in this White House?
MR. GIBBS: Look, obviously Rahm starts his day -- the President starts his day with a meeting with Rahm and ends it with a meeting with Rahm, just as we do as staff. I think his leadership, his energy has helped us accomplish so much in helping our economy recover, in passing landmark Wall Street reform, health care reform, credit card reform, student loan reform -- all of the things that -- there's not an important thing that has happened in this administration that we've been able to accomplish for the American people that has not involved heavily his signature.
Q Could you also just --
Q Since you brought these -- Robert, since you brought this back -- wait a minute, everybody --
Q But wait, wait, wait --
MR. GIBBS: Let me go to Lynn, let me go to Lynn, let me go to Lynn. I don't want to get in the middle of this Chicago thing.
Q And then will you come back to me?
Q We're going to have a little follow-up here.
MR. GIBBS: I'm standing somewhere on the bridge over the river. (Laughter.) Go ahead, sorry.
Q Now we're back into Rahm and you're talking about him. How would you -- I know you just --
MR. GIBBS: In fairness, the question was "talk obliquely."
Q Pardon?
MR. GIBBS: Just go ahead, I'm sorry.
Q Yes, I know. How -- and you just gave some issues, you just described what I think are things that you would describe as his legacy as the first chief of staff. How would you describe his relationship, in some other terms, and his management style?
MR. GIBBS: Not necessarily buying into the legacy part of your question. In terms of -- no, look -- look, I will say this. Rahm has an incredible amount of energy every day. He is -- you go into a meeting, he has a list of what he wants to get done, he's focused on getting those things done, he always has ideas, policy ideas. We were in the economic daily briefing today and he was very actively involved in discussions around the issues that we discussed in terms of the Recovery Act and TARP. There is -- you know, look, he is -- he has been the leader of -- I mean, the title "chief of staff" in many ways says it all. He has been the energetic, inspirational leader of us, taking the President's promises and agenda and enacting them into law.
Q The East Room is very often the site of visits of dignitaries and heads of state and important visitors. Why is this event in the East Room tomorrow?
MR. GIBBS: Because I saw animals pairing up in the Rose Garden, based on all the rain.
Q But the Rose Garden --
Q Give her a serious answer.
Q But wait, wait --
MR. GIBBS: No, no, I mean, the serious answer is --
Q -- wait, the Rose Garden is also an important venue. Why the Rose Garden or the East Room?
MR. GIBBS: Let's just say this. The personnel announcement tomorrow will be of a significant enough stature to warrant it.
Q Robert, The Washington Post -- Robert, The Washington Post --
Q Why this dance? This is just so odd. Don't you find it odd, Robert?
MR. GIBBS: I do find it odd. (Laughter.) This is the oddest thing I do every day. But hold on, but hold on, but hold on, but hold on. Let's just be clear.
Q What was the strategy behind this? Leave the glory for the President tomorrow?
MR. GIBBS: Let's just be clear for all the viewing audience. I've gotten emails from you, from you, from you, from you, from you, and from you all asking me to confirm other anonymous sources, right?
Q We broke it on Monday.
MR. GIBBS: Oh. Uh-oh. (Laughter.)
Q Just for the record.
MR. GIBBS: I'll let you guys play journalism review after I leave.
Q Lynn says she said it last week.
MR. GIBBS: Okay. See that? Let me take a couple more questions, and let you guys --
Q Wait, wait, Robert -- no, continue, can you finish the thought? I mean, what was the strategy -- to just leave the glory for the President?
MR. GIBBS: That I'm not going to send emails back to you, to you, to you, to you, or to you today --
Q No, but the East Room --
Q What was behind this? Was it to leave the glory for the President tomorrow? I mean, this is sort of an odd dance that you're going through today.
MR. GIBBS: No, Dan. I don't think it's an odd dance that the President here makes decisions.
Q Without confirming it, we all know it's happening tomorrow.
MR. GIBBS: And the President makes decisions, the President makes announcements. I'm going to wait for the President to make that announcement.
Q Robert, The Washington Post reported that 4 percent of Capitol Hill staffers owe $9 million in back taxes, but White House staff tax delinquencies are nearly twice as high as on Capitol Hill. Does the White House believe the Post is inaccurate?
MR. GIBBS: I don't have any information. I don't have any information on that.
Q All right. What is the White House reaction to the Human Events report that in the first 19 months of the Obama administration, the national debt increased by $2.5 trillion, or more than during all Presidents, from George Washington to Ronald Reagan?
MR. GIBBS: Well, I think that seems to have missed a few Presidents that have accumulated a lot of debt because we -- because programs that were enacted weren't paid for -- wars, benefits on Medicare, tax cuts, which while isn't a program for program is something that affects our fiscal situation, which is why --
Q -- pushing tax cuts won't be paid for, the $3 trillion --
MR. GIBBS: And believes that we can't afford the other $700 billion.
Q But why not try to pay for them if it's important for the President to pay for things?
MR. GIBBS: Because in a time of economic uncertainty, we believe that they should be extended.
Q Staying on tax cuts, if you can't -- if 60 is the new 50, what does that say for you all's legislative agenda next year when the numbers are even worse for you?
MR. GIBBS: Well, we'll have all next year to talk about that.
Thanks, guys.


text: The solid wood Nelson Miniature Chest, inspired by Japanese design, provides lots of wonderful little spaces to keep wonderful little things. Made with hand-fitted drawers—the kind of American craftsmanship designer George Nelson insisted upon in 1952 and that is harder and harder to find. Offered in several sizes and drawer configurations, with or without pedestals, these chests make an interesting addition to any room in the home or office.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Hang ten at your favorite small press book purveyor on Tiki Day this Friday 8/29. Join us for day-long Hawaiian musical groves, get "lei'ed" and see your favorite Quimby's employees in full on island garb. We'll wowie your Maui with gratis (that means free on the mainland) appetizers, drinkies and a resplendent tiki window display.
Get your island on….while it lasts.


text:
Sharpie Chisel Point Red Permanent Marker Sold Individually
Broad and fine strokes. You'll excuse our split personality.
- Versatile chisel tip marks both broad and fine line widths
- Unique anti-roll barrel design
- Permanent on most surfaces
- Fade and water resistant Quick-drying ink
- AP certified nontoxic formula


text:
Home | Reviews | Extras | Forums |
Amagami SS+ plusSynopsisA continuation of Amagami SS, showing what happens after each girl's respective arc. ReviewWhy? My first thought when confronted with the announcement that there would be a sequel to the pleasant and enjoyable Amagami SS was exactly that. Why? Don't get me wrong, the prospect of another season of soft romance and mild comedy centred on cute girls was not unappealing in the slightest but still, why make more of it? Yes, I am being deliberately obtuse - I know it is all about greasing the wheels of capitalism - but my point is that anyone who has seen the first series (and you will need to since this is a direct continuation) will know that, apart from one notable exception (Sakurai's arc), there really wasn't any strong need for a continuation. That all said I jumped straight in - heedless of its cash-cow nature - expecting more of the same and no surprises. More of the same is exactly what I got. So you might have noticed that this series is about half the length of the first and in that, the six different arcs are also half the length - each comprising two episodes for each of the six girls rather than original's four. The girls are exactly as you might remember, not overburdened with depth but still enjoyable. The art is still pleasing in its simplicity and still grounded in realism (if you ignore Haruka's cousin Jennifer). Sadly, in the case of the music, we do not get the personalised ending songs and sequences for each girl but it's all still sweetly saccharine in its rather inoffensive style. So what about the stories then? Just like the first season they fluctuate somewhere between fun and dull, Sakurai and Haruka's being the standouts in my opinion with Sae's not far behind. Some of the stories feel a little forced and incongruent with the run of the original stories (again, thanks to the majority of them being completely self-contained) but none of them ever reach Fortune Arterial levels of tedium so I have no real reason to complain. The simple fact is that they deliver in the same way as the original did in terms of sweetness and light humour though often lacking in drama and on a couple of occasions resorting to rather contrived moments of peril for Junichi and his girl's relationship that faded as quickly as they appeared. As mentioned, the characters still bare the mild charm they did before - never really fleeing archetypes that are easily recognisable but never holding so closely to them that it gets annoying or overpowering. The problem of necessity aside, Amagami SS+ is just what a fan would want. You get more of the girls, more of the sweetness and even a proper resolution to the Sakurai arc that the series never offered first time round. Other than that, it is pleasant fluff, if that is what you want then you could do a whole lot worse than Amagami SS and its sequel. I preferred the first series, the two-episode format felt too short to get a properly interesting story going and so only the ones that actually built off the first show's arcs really felt complete. That said, it is not so much worse than the original that I would want to penalise it and when it is good, it is good. So if you liked Amagami SS then Plus should satisfy you if you yearn for more but don't go expecting more in-depth stories, you'll be mostly disappointed. — Aiden Foote Recommended Audience: A few perverted fantasies from Junichi are about as objectionable as this show gets over the first twelve episodes and even they are solely for laughs. Episode thirteen on the other hand is a hot springs episode and includes extensive discussions about breasts and features most (if not all) of the girls wandering around in towels and going in and out of baths. It's hardly Queen's Blade or Ikkitousen but it's definitely a step up in fanservice compared to the rest of the series. Version(s) Viewed: Digital source Review Status: Full (13/13) Amagami SS+ plus © 2012 ENTERBRAIN, Production Committee, INC. / Amagami SS + |
© 1996-2015 THEM Anime Reviews. All rights reserved. |


text:
(visited by Wolfgang Seel, Albine Koerber, Tanja Scheiderer, Thomas Scheiderer, Mate Goergey and Hashmi)
01-Nov-2010 -- Continued from 24N 13E.
We bagged this Confluence only 3 hrs after 24N 13E, and a smooth ride over gently undulating sand dunes. Someone, possibly oil surveyors, had marked this Confluence before us with a metal pole 300 m off the exact location.
Except from beautiful red coloured dunes which get increasingly higher from SE to NW, the only spot worth telling in this area is the Col d'Anaj 50 km NW, one of the very few motorable passes from Messak Mellet plateau across the unmarked border down to Algeria in the West.
Continued at 27N 14E.


text: Resibo December 24 2023 Today HD Episode Online. All Family series and action dramas on Pinoy Tambayan are available in smooth HD Video Quality. Watch Latest Advance Episode of Resibo December 24 2023 on Pinoy Lambingan. Enjoy Pinoy Teleserye in High Quality and Medium Quality Depending Upon Your Choice BookMark our website.


text:
From my understanding objects do not fall but are pulled to the earth from gravity.
With this in mind, I can't understand why if helium filled balloons are not pulled by gravity then shouldn't they be stationary in the sky (or drift like objects in space with no gravity) rather than actively move away from the earth?
Is gravity pushing it rather than pulling it? Why is this?


text:
It's raining, the kids battery-operated robot isn't working. You'd sit and make tea and toast but the toaster is broken, and so is the kettle for that matter.
Just plan a little ahead and bring all your almost-working or seriously-broken small appliances, electronics, toys, and gadgets to the East Bay Mini Maker Faire. Peter Mui and his lovely Fixit Clinic team will provide workspace, specialty tools, and guidance to help you disassemble and troubleshoot your item. You'll be back in tea and toast in no time. And, if for some reason it can't be fixed, at least you'll know more about how it works and why it broke in the first place.
Of course, if all attempts fail—just take it down the hall to the Wreck Lab and give it its due!
Watch the Fix-It Clinic in action here:


text:
I get fed up hearing other Agile evangelists champion The Scientific Method, I don't disagree with them, I use it myself but I think they are sometimes guilty of overlooking how the scientific method is actually practiced by scientists and researchers. Too often the scientific approach is made to sound simple, it isn't.
First lets define the scientific method. Perhaps rather than call it "scientific method" it is better called "experimentation." What the Agile Evangelists of my experience are often advocating is running an experiment - perhaps several experiments in parallel but more likely in sequence. The steps are something like this:
- Propose a hypothesis, e.g. undertaking monthly software releases instead of bi-monthly will result in a lower percentage of release problems
- Examine the current position: e.g. find the current figures for release frequency and problems, record these
- Decide how long you want to run the experiment for, e.g. 6 months
- Introduce the change and reserve any judgement until the end of the experiment period
- Examine the results: recalculate the figures and compare these with the original figures
- Draw a conclusion based on observation and data
I agree with all of this, I think its great, but…
Lets leave aside problems of measurement, problems of formulating the hypothesis, problems of making changes and propagation problems (i.e. the time it takes for changes to work though the system). These are not minor problems and they do make me wonder about applying the scientific method in the messy world of software and business but lets leave them to one side for the moment.
Lets also leave aside the so-called Hawthorne Effect - the tendency for people to change and improve their behaviour because know they are in an experiment. Although the original Hawthorne experiments were shown to be flawed some time ago the effect might still be real. And the flaws found in the Hawthorne experiments should remind us that there may be other factors at work which we have not considered.
Even with all these caveats I'm still prepared to accept an experimental approach to work has value. Sometimes the only way to know whether A or B is the best answer is to actually do A and do B and compare the results.
But, this is where my objections start…. There are two important elements missing from the way Agile Evangelists talk about the scientific method. When real scientists - and I include social-scientists here - do an experiment there is more to the scientific method than the experiment and so there should be in work too.
#1: Literature review - standing on the shoulders of others
Before any experiment is planned scientists start by reviewing what has gone before. They go to the library, sometimes books but journals are probably more up to date and often benefit from stricter peer review. They read what others have found, they read what others have done before, the experiments and theories devised to explain the results.
True your business, your environment, your team are all unique and what other teams find might not apply to you. And true you might be able to find flaws in their research and their experiments. But that does not mean you should automatically discount what has gone before.
If other teams have found consistent results with an approach then it is possible yours will too. The more examples of something working the more likely it will work for you. Why run an experiment if others have already found the result?
Now I'm happy to agree that the state of research on software development is pitiful. Many of those who should be helping the industry here, "Computer Science" and "Software Engineering" departments in Universities don't produce what the industry needs. (Ian Sommerville's recent critique on this subject is well worth reading "The (ir)relevance of academic software engineering research"). But there is research out there. Some from University departments and some from industry.
Plus there is a lot of research that is relevant but is outside the computing and software departments. For example I have dug up a lot of relevant research in business literature, and specifically on time estimation in psychology journals (see my Notes on Estimation and Retrospective Estimation and More notes on Estimation Research.)
As people used to dealing with binary software people might demand a simple "Yes this works" or "No it doesn't" and those suffering from physics envy may demand rigorous experimental research but little of the research of this type exists in software engineering. Much of software engineering is closer to psychology, you can't conduct the experiments that would give these answers. You have to use statistics and other techniques and look at probabilities. (Notice I've separated computer science from software engineering here. Much of computer science theory (e.g. sort algorithm efficiency, P and NP problems, etc.) can stand up with physics theory but does not address many of the problems practicing software engineers face.)
#2: Clean up the lab
I'm sure most of my readers did some science at school. Think back to those experiments, particularly the chemistry experiments. Part of the preparation was to check the equipment, clean any that might be contaminated with the remains of the last experiment, ensure the workspace was clear and so on.
I'm one of those people who doesn't (usually) start cooking until they have tidies the kitchen. I need space to chop vegetables, I need to be able to see what I'm doing and I don't want messy plates getting in the way. There is a word for this: Mise en place, its a French expression which according to Wikipedia means:
"is a French phrase which means "putting in place", as in set up. It is used in professional kitchens to refer to organizing and arranging the ingredients (e.g., cuts of meat, relishes, sauces, par-cooked items, spices, freshly chopped vegetables, and other components) that a cook will require for the menu items that are expected to be prepared during a shift."
(Many thanks to Ed Sykes for telling me a great term.)
And when you are done with the chemistry experiment, or cooking, you need to tidy up. Experiments need to include set-up and clean-up time. If you leave the lab a mess after every experiment you will make it more difficult for yourself and others next time.
I see the same thing when I visit software companies. There is no point in doing experiments if the work environment is a mess - both physically and metaphorically. And if people leave a mess around when they have finished their work then things will only get harder over time. There are many experiments you simply can't run until you have done the correct preparation.
An awful lot of the initial advice I give to companies is simply about cleaning up the work environment and getting them into a state where they can do experiments. Much of that is informed by reference to past literature and experiments. For example:
- Putting effective source code control and build systems in place
- Operating in two week iterations: planning out two weeks of work, reviewing what was done and repeating
- Putting up a team board and using it as a shared to-do list
- Creating basic measurement tools, whether they be burn-down charts, cumulative flow diagrams or even more basic measurements
You get the idea?
Simply tidying up the work environment and putting a basic process in place, one based on past experience, one which better matches the way work actually happens can alone bring a lot of benefit to organizations. Some organizations don't need to get into experiments, they just need to tidy up.
And, perhaps unfortunately, that is where is stops for some teams. Simply doing the basics better, simply tidying up, removes a lot of the problems they had. It might be a shame that these teams don't go further, try more but that might be good enough for them.
Imagine a restaurant that is just breaking even, the food is poor, customers sometimes refuse to pay, the service shoddy so tips are small, staff don't stay long which makes the whole problem worse, a vicious circle develops. In an effort to cut costs managers keep staffing low so food arrives late and cold.
Finally one of the customers is poisoned and the local health inspector comes in. The restaurant has to do something. They were staggering on with the old ways until now but a crisis means something must be done.
They clean the kitchen, they buy some new equipment, they let the chef buy the ingredients he wants rather than the cheapest, they rewrite the menu to simplify their offering. They don't have to do much and suddenly the customers are happier: the food is warmer and better, the staff are happier, a virtuous circle replaces a vicious circle.
How far the restaurant owners want to push this is up to them. If they want a Michelin star they will go a long way, but if this is the local greasy spoon cafe what is the point? - It is their decision.
They don't need experiments, they only need the opening of the scientific method, the bit that is too often overlooked. Some might call it "Brilliant Basics" but you don't need to be brilliant, just "Good Basics." (Remember my In Search of Mediocracy post?).
I think the scientific method is sometimes, rightly or wrongly, used as a backdoor in an attempt to introduce change. To lower resistance and get individuals and teams to try something new: "Lets try X for a month and then decide if it works." Thats can be a legitimate approach. But dressing it up in the language of science feels dishonest.
Lets have less talk about "The Scientific Method" and more talk about "Tidying up the Kitchen" - or is it better in French? Mise en place…. come to think of it, don't the Lean community have Japanese word for this? Pika pika.


text:
Globally Set Digits in Sweave
I use Sweave regularly for most of my writing and love the way it works. However, one issue that often irks me is the inability to globally set the number of digits to display. Here is a minimal example that illustrates my point. If we now display the numbers using ... [Read more...]


text: Age of Chivalry Steam achievements: ------------------- Submitted by: David K Complete the following tasks to unlock the achievement. To view your achievements and stats in Steam, select "Community", then "My profile", then "View all my games", then the game and view stats. Unlockable How to Unlock ----------------------------------- A heavy burdon - Kill a player with the stonetrap in Stoneshill. A helping hand - Assist in raising 100 flags. All Within My Hands - Get 100 kills with the Fists. Animal Abuser! - Be mean to animals. Assassin - Kill 100 objective-carrying enemies. BBQ Master - Torch 5 players to death in one round. Blast from the past - Destroy the sea wall at Invasion. Blood Bank - Take 500 damage in one life. Blunt Instrument - Kill 100 with your Warhammer. Born for War - Accumulate 1000 Kills. Burning Ambition - Complete an objective while in fire. Can't Touch This - Parry 1000 blows. Char Broiled - Kill someone with an oilpot. Critical Hit - Kill 50 Enemies through their parry. Crossbow Twang - 500 Kills with the crossbow. Death from above - Kill 1 player with the oilbarrels at Siege. Defending Champion - Absorb 500,000 damage with a shield. Elbow Grease - Push the cart on Dark Forest. Escapist - Steal the Crown at Monastery Hill. Executioner - Get 20 decapitations in one round. Face-kebab - Get a Headshot with the Ballista. Father of Lies - Apologize after killing a teammate. First Blood - Get the first kill in a round. Five Star Arching - Get 10 Headshots with the Bow in one game. Flag Collector - Capture 50 Flags. Flash of the Blade - Successfully parry, stab and slash in a fight. Green is beautiful! - Stare at the Glow Worms in Invasion for 5 seconds!. Harvester of Sorrow - Score 150 points or more on Sorrow. Heads are Rollin' - Decapitate a peasant in The Shore. Heads on a Platter! - Save the Prince in The Siege. Heads Together - Decpitate 2 opponents with 1 swing. Heaven Can Wait - Kill 3 people while on the brink of death. Hero of the Day - Complete all objectives in a map. Jack of All Blades - Get 500 kills with each class. Just a flesh wound! - Lose your head 100 times. KABOOOM! - Push the bomb cart in Helms Deep. Knife in the Dark - Slay 25 with throwing knives. Legendary Champion - Get 10,000 kills. Legendary Defender - Kill 500 Opponents while they are near, or completing, an objective. Legendary Mercenary - Slay 1000 Agathians and 1000 Masons. Lumberjack - Kill 10 players with your hand axe. Ninja - Kill an opponent with your bare hands. Olympian - Hit an opponent with a Javelin from over 100 feet away. On top of things! - Raise 25 flags by yourself. Robin Hood (Bronze) - Get 50 kills with the Longbow. Robin Hood (Gold) - Get 1000 kills with the Longbow. Robin Hood (Silver) - Get 200 Kills with the Longbow. Rotisserie Chef - Decapitate an opponent that is on fire. Royal Flush - Kill 5 enemies without dying. Secret: Booooooooo! - Toss some pumpkins in Tournament. Seek and Destroy - Headshot, Decap or Head Explodie the last person to kill you after dying. Shoot Me Again - Kill the same person twice in a row with the Longbow. Siege Engine - On The Siege, get 20 catapult kills in one round. Siegemaster - Achieve 50 catapult kills. Sweet Spot - Kill 200 players at full health with one blow. Timber!!! - Chop down the Tree in The Shore. Tis but a scratch! - Get decapped 50 times. Trebuchet Away! - Fire the Trebuchet in The Siege. Tumbling Axes - Slay 25 with throwing axes. Turtler - Make 7 successful parries in a row.


text:
lipstick queen
sinner - fire red
sinner - fire red || lipstick queen || beautybar
"fire red" is a bright orangey red.
Poppy King, Lipstick Queen founder, designed the "sinners" to be the ultimate full-coverage matte lipsticks with 90% pigment. the "sinner" formula takes creaminess to a whole new level. the formulation glides on, lasts beautifully and feels great on the lips. each shade has been meticulously designed to be the ultimate in its category - lighting up your face and your mood!
each "sinner" shade is also available in the "saint" formulation with 10% pigment for a gorgeous tint of colour.
+ matte opaque lipstick with 90% pigment
+ moisturising and long-lasting dramatic colour
+ fragrance and shimmer free
+ the glamorous look of the golden years of Hollywood but with modern comfort and technology


text:
While mobile payments transform financial life in many less developed countries, retailers and payment providers in the U.S. and Europe are still trying to find the right incentives to drive adoption.
The added convenience of mobile payments won't inspire consumers to switch from credit cards in countries where credit cards are widely used, industry observers said at the Mobile Commerce World conference in San Francisco this week. But special offers and services could attract consumers, and small businesses disappointed with current payment systems may be among the first to make the switch, they said.
Financial services built around mobile networks and simple phones are the first form of banking for consumers in many less developed countries and are growing rapidly, according to Bill Gajda, head of global mobile products at Visa. The trend has moved beyond the well-documented success of the M-Pesa service in Kenya, he said.
Visa's bKash service in Bangladesh, its fastest-growing mobile payments offering, lets consumers put cash into their mobile accounts at small, local merchants and then spend that money at other merchants, pay utility bills, or send it to friends and relatives, Gajda said. In less than two years, bKash has attracted 2.2 million users and is adding 11,000 users per day, he said.
"This is an enormous opportunity to really replace cash and check, with its inconvenience and in many cases ... lack of security in these markets, with a very safe way to make mobile payments," Gajda said.
By contrast, credit cards are so widespread and easy to use in most developed countries that mobile commerce innovations will have a much rougher road to acceptance, Gajda and others at the conference said. For example, NFC (near-field communication), which lets consumers buy things by tapping their phones against a pay terminal, is growing slowly because of the alternatives available, Gajda said.
"The United States is not going to be the lead market for NFC," Gajda said. That's because swiping a magnetic-stripe credit card, which often doesn't even require a signature in the U.S., is quicker even than using chip-and-PIN cards found in Europe, he said.
The difference in ease of use between U.S. and European cards is negligible when all the steps in a transaction are included, said analyst David Schropfer of the Luciano Group consultancy. But richer and poorer countries are worlds apart in the need for mobile commerce, he said.
What may drive NFC adoption most in the U.S. is the coming requirement for retailers to adopt chip-and-PIN systems at their points of sale, according to Schropfer. Starting in 2015, credit-card companies plan to shift liability for fraud to retailers unless they adopt chip-and-PIN systems, which the companies say are more secure. The new point-of-sale systems will all be equipped for NFC, too, he said.
The impending change opens up space for startups with mobile variations on the current credit-card infrastructure or totally new payment systems, Schropfer said.
Much of the battle of payment systems will be fought over small, local merchants, according to three startups represented in a panel discussion at the conference. Dwolla, PayDragon and Groupon's Payments division are targeting small businesses that they say are paying more than necessary for the ability to accept credit cards.
"The cost of payments is too high for most merchants. ... It's really not fair, in my opinion," said Sean Harper, director of product management for Groupon Payments. It's true that small businesses typically pay higher fees than big chains, just as they pay more for commodities, because they don't have the negotiating power of retail giants, Schropfer said.
Small businesses looks to be where much of the disruption of mobile commerce will happen, Groupon's Harper said.
"They don't have any allegiance to their existing payment system because it's not serving them very well," he said. Groupon takes a smaller share of each sale than regular credit-card companies, and it can also use data about payments to help businesses attract customers, Harper said.
To sell consumers on changing their payment habits, businesses and vendors in advanced countries will have to offer discounts or other benefits, analyst Schropfer said. In that sense, mobile commerce today is like a vast laboratory of experiments to find what will motivate users to try something new.
PayDragon thinks it's found a way to give consumers something they can't get with other methods of payment. One service it offers is the ability to pay for food at a restaurant while standing in line and looking at the menu, in order to save time at the checkout counter.
But PayDragon has to get the restaurant to adopt its system first, then attract consumers one step at a time, said Hamilton Chan, the company's CEO.
"It's a very, very tricky and daunting task to make all of this happen," Chan said. Consumers have to know about the company and have an Internet connection to download the app, then create an account and associate a credit card with it, and then make a purchase and get in the habit of using the system, he said. "Going down that funnel is extremely difficult."
Stephen Lawson covers mobile, storage and networking technologies for The IDG News Service. Follow Stephen on Twitter at @sdlawsonmedia. Stephen's e-mail address is firstname.lastname@example.com


text:
N. T. Wrighthailed by Time as "one of the most formidable figures in Christian thought"first captured my imagination with the early volumes of his series Christian Origins and the Question of God. In them, he frames the Christian story precisely as a story, a grand narrative, the greatest epic, and all the greater for being true. As Wesley Hill noted in our most recent issue, there can be peril in such readings of Scripture, but also great promise. In a recent interview with J. John of the Philo Trust, Wright explains why he views the complementarity of the sexes as essential to that story, and to marriage itself. Below is an unedited transcript.
What do you think are the major challenges to the church and the Christian message in the light of the current legislation on the redefinition of marriage?
N. T. Wright: Obviously huge issues there, and there's no way we can lay them all out tonight. I do want to say a word about a word. When anybodypressure groups, governments, civilizationssuddenly change the meaning of key words, you really should watch out. If you go to a German dictionary and just open at random, you may well see several German words which have a little square bracket saying "N.S.," meaning National Socialist or Nazi. The Nazis gave those words a certain meaning. In post-1917 Russia, there were whole categories of people who were called "former persons," because by the Communist diktat they had ceased to be relevant for the state, and once you call them former persons it was extremely easy to ship them off somewhere and have them killed.
In the same way, there was a letter in the Times Literary Supplement just a few weeks ago saying that when we're talking about assisted suicide, we shouldn't actually use words like "suicide," "killing," and those sort of words because those imply that you shouldn't do it. Whereas now our civilization is saying that maybe there are reasons for that. I find that sort of stuff chilling, the attempt to change an ideology within a culture by changing the language.
Now, the word "marriage," for thousands of years and cross-culturally has meant man and woman. Sometimes it's been one man and more than one woman. Occasionally it's been one woman and more than one man. There is polyandry as well as polygamy in some societies in some parts of history, but it's always been male plus female. Simply to say that you can have a woman-plus-woman marriage or a man-plus-man marriage is radically to change that because of the givenness of maleness and femaleness. I would say that without any particular Christian presuppositions at all, just cross-culturally, that's so.
With Christian or Jewish presuppositions, or indeed Muslim, then if you believe in what it says in Genesis 1 about God making heaven and earthand the binaries in Genesis are so importantthat heaven and earth, and sea and dry land, and so on and so on, and you end up with male and female. It's all about God making complementary pairs which are meant to work together. The last scene in the Bible is the new heaven and the new earth, and the symbol for that is the marriage of Christ and his church. It's not just one or two verses here and there which say this or that. It's an entire narrative which works with this complementarity so that a male-plus-female marriage is a signpost or a signal about the goodness of the original creation and God's intention for the eventual new heavens and new earth.
If you say that marriage now means something which would allow other such configurations, what you're saying is actually that when we marry a man and a woman we're not actually doing any of that stuff. This is just a convenient social arrangement and sexual arrangement and there it is . . . get on with it. It isn't that that is the downgrading of marriage, it's something that clearly has gone on for some time which is now poking it's head above the parapet. If that's what you thought marriage meant, then clearly we haven't done a very good job in society as a whole and in the church in particular in teaching about just what a wonderful mystery marriage is supposed to be. Simply at that level, I think it's a nonsense. It's like a government voting that black should be white. Sorry, you can vote that if you like, you can pass it by a total majority, but it isn't actually going to change the reality.
The other thing I find worrying is that I was struck this weekthis is a memory, and you may not agree with the judgment that precedes itbut eleven years ago, no, actually ten years ago, almost right now, we were about to go to war against Iraq. I sat in my kitchen and I listened to Tony Blair making the great speech on how we should go and bomb Iraq (it was the day before they actually started). I thought at the time and I still think that that speech was absolutely full of holes. It was begging questions, it was missing points, it was slipping cogs in the logic. Yet all the papers were on board, almost everyone in Parliament was on board, with only a few grouchy people, and I remember thinking at the time: This is absolutely crazy. We should not be doing this and there's all sorts of what-ifs which we haven't thought through. I have to say, over the last ten years I have seen no reason to change that judgment at all.
I sense something of the same mood this week. All the press is on-side, most of Parliament's on-side, and people are sayingget thisthat unless you support this, you're on the wrong side of history. Excuse me. Did you see University Challenge last night? There was a nice question: Somebody said, who was it who said in 1956, "History is on our side and we will bury you"? One of the contestants got the answer right: It was Nikita Khrushchev. When people claim, "We're going with the flow of history," that's just a rhetorical smokescreen. So, that's where I am.


text:
Researchers at the University of Toronto say a sleep disorder that causes people to act out their dreams is the best current predictor of brain diseases like Parkinson's and many other forms of dementia.
"Rapid-eye-movement sleep behaviour disorder (RBD) is not just a precursor but also a critical warning sign of neurodegeneration that can lead to brain disease," says associate professor and lead author Dr. John Peever. In fact, as many as 80 to 90 per cent of people with RBD will develop a brain disease."
As the name suggests, the disturbance occurs during the rapid-eye-movement (REM) stage of sleep and causes people to act out their dreams, often resulting in injury to themselves and/or bed partner. In healthy brains, muscles are temporarily paralyzed during sleep to prevent this from happening.
"It's important for clinicians to recognize RBD as a potential indication of brain disease in order to diagnose patients at an earlier stage," says Peever. "This is important because drugs that reduce neurodegeneration could be used in RBD patients to prevent (or protect) them from developing more severe degenerative disorders."
His research examines the idea that neurodegeneration might first affect areas of the brain that control sleep before attacking brain areas that cause more common brain diseases like Alzheimer's.
Peever says he hopes the results of his study lead to earlier and more effective treatment of neurodegenerative diseases.
Professor John Peever is an associate professor in U of T's Department of Cell and Systems Biology. His research is available in print and online in the latest issue of Trends in Neurosciences.
Source: CAN-ACN


text:
Andrew Carnegie Biography
Andrew Carnegie
iron/steel manufacturer, philanthropistBorn: 11/25/1835
Birthplace: Dunfermline, Scotland
Though his formal education ended after elementary school, the family's respect for books and learning ensured that Carnegie's education would continue throughout his life. He eventually counted among his friends Matthew Arnold, Mark Twain, William Gladstone, and Theodore Roosevelt, each responsible for expanding his world view. The family immigrated to Allegheny (now Pittsburgh) Pennsylvania in 1848, where Carnegie went from being a bobbin boy in a factory to become a telegraph operator. It was in this capacity that he helped improve the Union Army's communications during the Civil War. He left the Pennsylvania Railroad in 1865 after 12 years to concentrate on his own businesses, the first being the Keystone Bridge Company, which made iron and steel. Carnegie shrewdly surrounded himself with intelligent advisors, made heavy investments new equipment, and maintained his ownership stake in all his enterprises, enabling him to exponentially increase his wealth. The Carnegie Steel Company was producing one-fourth of all steel in the U.S. by 1900, and was sold to U.S. Steel in 1901 for $250 million. Carnegie then retired to write books espousing social responsibility of the wealthy, and spent his final years giving away his substantial fortune to benefit the public with projects such as Carnegie Hall in New York, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and over 2,800 libraries.
Died: 8/11/1919


text:
Chicago Cutlery® Walnut Tradition® 6" Utility Knife
The walnut colored handled knife is a staple in kitchens across America.
Product Details
This Chicago Cutlery® utility knife is one you'll want in your own kitchen. It features triple-compression brass rivets for extra safety and stability. And the stainless steel blade resists pitting, staining and rusting.
- Brass Triple Rivets securely fasten handle to tang for safety and stability
- Contoured handles for comfort
- Stamped design
- Sharpened for precision cutting
- High-quality stainless steel blades: Stronger, harder blade resists stains, rust, and pitting
- Hand washing recommended
- Full Lifetime Warranty
*All measurements are approximate.
Chicago Cutlery Knives Use & Care
Knife Care
- For best results, hand wash your knives with soap and water and dry immediately.
- Soaking wood-handled knives in water can remove the natural oils from the handles.
- DO NOT put knives in the dishwasher. Dishwasher use may cause nicks on the blade edges. Additionally, the heat and detergent may have a corrosive effect on the knives and damage the handle.
- DO NOT cut through bone with knives or use knives to poke, pry or separate frozen foods.
- DO NOT use knives as screwdrivers or can openers. This is not their intended purpose and can bend or break the blade or edge.
Knife Storage
- Sharp knives should never be stored loose in a drawer because contact with hard objects can dull the blade. Many CHICAGO CUTLERY sets are sold with a hardwood block for safe, convenient storage.
- MAGNASTRIP® storage is another way for convenient and safe storage, saving counter space with a magnetic strip.
- CHICAGO CUTLERY knives purchased individually are available in blade protectors. The blade protectors help keep the knife sharp and provide safe and convenient storage at home.
Sharpeners are not for use on scalloped or serrated edges. For optimum performance, knives should be sharpened after every couple of uses. Use a scouring powder after use to clean and remove metal particles from your sharpening steel. After cleaning the steel, rinse with water, dry it thoroughly and store in a dry place.
Sharpening Steel
- Hold sharpening steel point down on flat stable surface such as a table or cutting board.
- Angle knife blade approximately 15 degrees from the sharpening steel. Imagine the knife blade is at approximately 11 o'clock and 1 o'clock.
- Pull the knife down and across the sharpening steel in a slight arc, pulling the knife handle toward you. Repeat on the other side of the steel.
- Repeat these steps 3-5 times, alternating the right and left side of the cutting edge.
Full Lifetime Warranty
Corelle Brands promises to repair or replace, or at Corelle Brands' option, exchange for an item of equal or greater value any Chicago Cutlery® knife with defects in material or workmanship for the lifetime of the product. This warranty does not cover damage resulting from negligence, misuse, abuse, institutional/commercial use or purposes other than normal household use. This warranty does not cover wood blocks or cutting boards. Should a warranty problem develop, contact Corelle Brands Consumer Care: https://www.chicagocutlery.com/customer-care-center . KEEP THE PRODUCT. You may be asked to return it. Incidental and consequential damages are expressly excluded from this warranty. Some jurisdictions do not allow this exclusion or limitation, so the foregoing exclusion or limitation may not apply to you. This warranty gives you specific legal rights and you may also have other rights, which may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Note: see separate Prime by Chicago Cutlery warranty.
CHICAGO CUTLERY is a registered trademark of Corelle Brands Holdings Inc, used with permission by Corelle Brands LLC, Rosemont, IL 60018.
© 2020 Corelle Brands LLC, Rosemont, IL 60018


text:
Mirarva Coffee shop, Somajiguda is the usual hangout place for me and Sekhar Kammula whenever we sit for an interview. When I asked Sekhar Kammula that he has to don my hat as an interviewer for idlebrain.com, he gladly obliged. Idlebrain.com presents you the interview of Anish Kuruvilla done by Sekhar Kammula on behalf of idlebrain.com -
- Jeevi
After acting, co-directing, exec-producing for so many years, what prompted you to come up with the story of Avakai Biryani? I am a 'state of mind' kind of guy. So my story reflects my state of mind. I could come up with different subjects in different points of my life. During the time of the Godavari shoot, I came up with the idea of 'Avakai Biryani'. It came very natural to me and it was meant to happen.
When I wrote this story, I had lots of time to think about how I am going to shoot the film. If I were to come up with a story in early my 20's, I would have gone for fantasy/adventure kind of film. Over the last 10 years of working with you has mellowed me down and I am more mature now.
What were your fears and expectations when you came to narrate the story to me? When I narrated the story to you, I expected 50/50 chance of you accepting the film. There are some elements that appeal to your sensibilities and some elements are unique to me. The avakai girl character will be liked by you. But there are some elements which might not be liked by you. Lucky, you liked the soul of the story.
Another apprehension I had was the audience's expectations. They come to theaters expecting a Sekhar Kammula's movie. But this is entire different from Sekhar Kammula's earlier films. I believed in the story and stuck to my guns.
Regarding expectations, I wanted to get rid of production hassles in this project. You never had the luxury of not having production issues because you were the director and producer of all your films.
Were you fearful of my involvement in shooting? No. You involved only during the scripting stage. After I gave you the first draft, you asked for some modifications and by the time I came up with the 3rd draft you were satisfied. So, your involvement in the script is an advantage to me. But, you were never involved during the shooting process. The script of Avakai Biryani is a compilation of two years of my research and notes.
In a way I feel lucky because not many debutant directors get a chance to work with a knowledgeable and passionate producer like you.
Are there any influences of me or other filmmakers on you? I worked with Mani Shankar, Nagesh Kukunoor and you. Mani Shankar is a technical wizard. I learnt to be passionate about technique of filmmaking from him. Nagesh Kukunoor is obsessed with planning and troubleshooting. I learnt planning, organizing and troubleshooting from him. I learnt the grammar and structure of filmmaking from you.
Which influences of me you have on Avakai Biryani film?
1. Usage of natural dialogues 2. Characterization of heroine (independent and ambitious with personal pride) 3. Taste of music
Why didn't you hire any of my regular technicians? Being a new director, I need the sense of control. I worked as an assistant director to the editor Marthand K Venkatesh, the cinematographer Vijay C Kumar and the music directors KM Radha Krishnan / Micky J Meyer. If I work with any of these people, I can't be demanding. I want to work at the same level with them. I can't sit in the studio and make a film. My films are made over a cup of coffee in café or over a dinner.
I could have taken the same technical team that worked for Happy Days and fallen back on the reputation of your earlier films. But I want to be independent.
Were you afraid to tell me that Kamal would be hero when you narrated the script? Yes, I was little apprehensive about your reaction when I proposed the name of Kamal Kamaraju for the male lead. But with Kamal, I can demand a lot. Kamal carried the entire film on his shoulders.
Do you know the budget of the film? No. I don't know how much it cost to make Avakai Biryani.
How man cans of negative did you use to shoot? I wanted to shoot the entire film in 60 days, but ended up shooting it for 85 days. My target was to use 250 cans, but ended up using 385 cans. But it is still less than what you have exposed in your films - Anand (400 cans), Godavari (500 cans) and Happy Days (500 cans). Each can have a raw film of 400 feet.
Avakai Biryani is a small-town story. But you are a Malayali brought up in Hyderabad city. What was the biggest challenge for you? I am worldly-wise though I am born and brought up in Hyderabad. I am not an upper-class guy. The biggest challenge in the film was to make it authentic without being artsy. And I had to do the balancing act between authenticity and commerciality.
The title of Avakai Biryani sounds more like a comedy? Avakai Biryani is not a comedy film. It is a romantic and coming of age drama. There are a few moments that make you smile/laugh when you watch the film. Avakai Biryani makes you understand a fusion between two cultures/traditions. Avakai Biryani is the title that captures the mood and the philosophy of the film. It is a wholesome, healthy, tasty and delicious film.
What do you think is my best film so far? Godavari! When you first narrated the story to me, it did not make a sense at all. It took me lot of time to visualize what you meant. The entire exercise is like understanding marine engineering and physics of shooting on a boat. Godavari experience made me what I am today. It is very close to my heart and is a landmark period in my life.
How do you compare Godavari with Avakai Biryani? It is like comparing your own kids. Godavari is like an elder son. Avakai Biryani is a new born baby.
Do you expect any awards for Avakai Biryani? I try not to think about awards. My focus is now on to make Avakai Biryani a box-office success. The critics and audiences response is important to me now.
How did the censoring go? Avakai Biryani got a clean U certificate. They gave me four audio cuts and one visual cut. I had to delete a reference to a particular community in those four audio cuts. There is a full-blown-kiss in the film and that visual was deleted. There is lot of poetry in that kiss. You told me that this kiss will beat the Geetanjali's kiss scene. It was sweetly done. It makes me sad that the visual was deleted.
Why the kiss part was not there in the script you gave me? It comes as a montage scene in 'Ninnu Choodagala' song at 'Tapanedo aagena' lyric. I told you while narrating the song, you seem to have forgotten.
Were there any tense moments during the shoot of Avakai Biryani?
1. We were shooting in a highway which falls under forest reserve. In the middle of night, some people came and asked us to pack up. One guy was forcibly taking the camera. I resisted him in order to protect the camera. He hit me and I hit him back. I went into the car that carrying girls. They broke the car glass and asked me to step out. They took me hostage for the entire night. 2. There is an auto-race sequence. We did not hire any action director for that sequence. In one such scene, the auto toppled and I fell on my assistant director Suri. And Suri had to be hospitalized for the next six months undergoing physio-therapy. I felt bad. I am happy that Suri is normal now. This incident taught me not to take risks. I should have hired an action director for chase sequence.
What does Avakai Biryani means to you? Everyone wants to his/her personality and identity. I made Avakai Biryani to express my identity.
Why did you choose 'O Auto Driver Story' as the tagline to the film? It sets the right kind of expectations for the film. It tells that it is not a comedy. Avakai Biryani film revolves around the love, life, struggles and aspirations of an auto driver in a small town.
What is your gut feel of Avakai Biryani that is releasing tomorrow? I am feeling nervous. I am confident and at the same time apprehensive. Avakai Biryani is a small film with a big heart. I narrated the story in my way. I am little nervous about people comparing my film with your earlier films.
What will you do if the film becomes a super hit or if it did not do well? If it's a hit, I will be happy. Otherwise, I will get on with my work.
You are dedicating Avakai Biryani to your parents? When I told my parents that I want to enter film industry 10 years ago, they were disappointed. But, they let me do what I wanted to. My debut film Avakai Biryani means a lot to them. Hence I am dedicating it to my parents.
Whose comments on your film you are waiting for? I have a bunch of friends in USA. They are ruthless when it comes to films. I am expecting their honest opinion.
Why should people watch Avakai Biryani? Avakai Biryani is a good story filled with noble ideas and ideals thoughts. This film will send a very strong and positive message to the society. It is narrated like a fable/fairy tale. It is a 2:20 hours film which you will not regret watching.
What is your next project after Avakai Biryani? I am a moment kind of guy. Avakai Biryani's commercial fate will determine my destiny.
Other Interviews Gowtam Menon (Director) Genelia (Actress) Kamal Kamaraju (Actor) Kishore (Actor) Harsha Reddy (Director n producer) Bindu Madhavi (Actress) Shweta Basu Prasad (Actress) Dil Raju (Actor) Santhi Chandra (Actor) Teja (Director n producer) Jeevi (Critic) Lakshmikanth Chenna (Director) Manoj Manchu (Actor) Ajay Sastri (Director) Sekhar Kmmula (Producer) Ravi Krishna (Actor) Sunitha (Playback singer) VN Aditya (Diector & Producer) Nallamalupu Bujji (Producer) Uday Kiran (Actor) Chandra Sekhar (Actor) Raahul (Actor) Dil Raju (Producer) Gopichand (Actor) Siva (Souryam director) Venkatesh (Actor) Mamata Mohandas (Actress) Lakshmi Lahari (Actress) Ramesh Varma (Director) Samudra (Director) Yogesh (Director) Neha Thota (Child actress) Srinivas Avasarala (Actor) Uday Kiran (Actor) Kanmani (Director) Ram Gopal Varma (Director) PG Vinda (Cinematographer) Madan (Director) Bhavana (Heroine) Bhargava (Producer) Hari Yelleti (Director) Krishnudu (Actor) Kishore Ganji (Producer) Ram Mohan (Producer) Salim Panda (Actor) Surekha Vani (Actress) Manjari Fadniz (Actress) Vishal (Actor) A Raja Sekhar (Director) Sridevi (Actress) Sayaji Shinde (Actor) Viswa Tej (Actor) Geetha Madhuri (Playback Singer) Namitha (Actress) Sneha Ullal (Actress) Prem Kumar Patra (Producer) GV Prakash (Music director) Mohana Krishna Indraganti (Director) Bharat (Child actor) Malini Dasari (Cinematographer) Rama Jogaiah Sastry (Lyricist) Venkat (Hero) Uday Kiran (Hero) Sharwanand (Hero) Ram (Hero) Aditi Sharma (Heroine) Nagur Babu (Mano) (Singer) Sekhar Suri (Director) Sindhu Menon (Heroine) Vinu Thomas (Music director) Nihal (Music director & Singer) Nitin (Hero) Smita (Pop singer) Sonal Chauhan (Actress) Raghu Kunche (Singer) Udaya Bhanu (Anchor) Meher Ramesh (Director) Rao Ramesh (Actor) Gopi Mohan (Writer) Ajay Sastri (Director) Vara Mullapudi (Director) Bhumika Chawla (Actress) Jagapati Babu (Actor) Vijay C Kumar (Cinematographer) Sekhar Kammula (Director)


text:
What is Floral Stich Time Diamond Painting Art?
Make your own floral diamond painting by placing the stones (drills) in the marked positions on the canvas.
What's in the Floral Stich Time Diamond Painting Kit?
- Premium adhesive canvas
- Colored stones (drills) - we put 30% more stones to be able to finish the painting in case you lose some
- Applicator, Tweezers, Tray with a funnel, Wax Pad
Our Guarantee at Diamond Art World:
- Free Shipping and no hidden fees!
- Safe payments via Stripe® and Paypal®
- 14 days money-back guarantee
When Will I Get My Order?
Due to the high volume of orders please allow up to 15 days for delivery.


text:
Summer usually means higher gas prices. Conventional wisdom says that people travel more in the summer which raises the demand for gas, and everyone knows an increase in demand will drive up prices. But what if I told you that demand for gas has actually dropped significantly and that crude oil production in the United States has gone up? Believe it or not, American fuel consumption is down 16% since 2007, and for the first time since 1995, our domestic production of crude oil will be greater than the amount we import.
So here's the million dollar question: why are we still paying record prices for gas? Why haven't prices gone down as the law of supply and demand would suggest? There's rarely a simple answer to a complicated question, but the short answer is: corn. Through a bizarre turn of events, corn and the bad energy policies that force us to put corn in our gas tanks are now causing us record levels of pain at the pump.
Ethanol is a grain alcohol, often fermented from corn, which can also be used as fuel. The idea of corn ethanol as a way to stretch limited amounts of crude oil has been around for a long time. Not surprisingly, some of the strongest advocates of its use have been corn farmers and the politicians who represent them. The fact that the Iowa grows a lot of corn and the Iowa Caucuses are an important pit stop for every presidential candidate means that ethanol has always had friends in high places.
But ethanol also became the darling of some environmentalists. They claimed it caused less air pollution than regular gasoline and that growing corn was more environmentally sustainable than drilling for oil. For all these reasons, in 2007, Congress began to mandate that ethanol make up a certain percentage of all gasoline sold in the United States, with the required percentage rising each year. Politically, this seemed like a win: environmentalists were happy with mandatory biofuels, corn farmers were happy with an increased demand on their product, and consumers were supposed to receive at least some relief with prices at the pump.
But last summer we had a drought. This produced the smallest corn crop in seven years, which led to fierce competition between the food industry, the livestock industry (which depends on corn for feed) and biofuel refineries. So ironically, it is now ethanol requirements—which consume five billion bushels of corn each year—that are driving up fuel costs, rather than the price of crude oil.
What's more, with half the nation's corn supply going to produce ethanol, global food prices are rising, leading to hunger and even food riots in other countries. (The amount of corn needed to fill just one gas tank with ethanol could feel a human being for an entire year.) Rising food and fuel prices would seem like good reasons to revisit the ethanol mandates causing the problem. But despite pleas from several states, the EPA has refused to relax or revise the requirements for the use of corn ethanol in gasoline.
I have written extensively about how rising fuel costs disproportionately hurt the poor. Inflexible requirements on ethanol fuel victimize the poor coming and going. The poor spend a much larger percentage of their income on food, energy and transportation, and rising corn prices driven by ethanol requirements make all three worse. Policies like this are the worst regressive taxes, because they make it more expensive for the poor to purchase basic necessities, while the rich hardly notice the difference.
But isn't a clean planet worth a few extra bucks at the pump? Ironically, it is becoming clear that ethanol is by no means a slam-dunk as far as environmental benefits go. In 2009, Stanford researchers demonstrated that burning ethanol actually creates more ozone pollution than burning gasoline. Ethanol also contributes to deforestation as more land is cleared to grow corn. Yet the EPA still considers it a "clean" fuel and continues to mandate its use in our gasoline.
Then there are the lobbyists for the corn and ethanol industries. They receive huge federal subsidies and depend on the federal ethanol requirement to keep up demand for their product. However, at its core this is an issue of the government trying to predict which technological innovation will be the best path toward clean, affordable energy. This is precisely what has led to so many failed and mismanaged "green" energy companies like Solyndra and most recently LG Chem Michigan. So perhaps it is time for the government to reexamine many of its ill-conceived energy regulations and subsidies which have now been shown to do more harm than good. Let your government representatives know that Americans, especially the most economically vulnerable, deserve better.