text:
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
Daily Briefing by the Press Secretary, 10/10/13
James S. Brady Press Briefing Room
MR. CARNEY: Good afternoon. Thank you for your patience. Obviously, as almost every day is, a busy day for news and events. Before I go to your questions I just wanted to mention that in addition to the Senate Democrats and then the House Republicans -- or a subsection of the House Republicans, although all of them were invited -- being here this afternoon, Senate Republicans will pay a visit to the White House to meet with the President tomorrow morning. And we'll have a specific time for you later.
Beyond that, I don't have an announcement to make. I suspect I know at least some of the questions you'll ask, so I'll go straight to the Associated Press.
Q Thanks, Jay. I think we all want to know what the White House reaction is to the Speaker's proposal this morning.
MR. CARNEY: The President is happy that cooler heads at least seem to be prevailing in the House, that there at least seems to be a recognition that default is not an option. Now, the President believes that it would be far better for the Congress -- and in this case, the House -- to raise the debt ceiling for an extended period of time, as Senate Democrats are working on as we speak. It would be far better for the economy if we stopped this episodic brinksmanship and sort of moth-balled the so-called nuclear weapon here, which is the threat of default, for a longer duration.
But it is certainly at least an encouraging sign that, based on today's statement by the Speaker, they're not listening to the debt limit and default deniers who seem to suggest, against all the accumulated wisdom of financial experts, that somehow it would be okay for the United States to enter territory that it had never entered before and threaten default for the first time in our history. So that's our initial response.
Q Would the President sign a short-term --
MR. CARNEY: Well, we have seen nothing -- obviously no proposal from House Republicans yet. There's no bill to look at. As I just said, the President strongly prefers a longer-term resolution so that we can get away from this periodic brinksmanship. I mean, if there's a recognition that we can't default, why is there an insistence or the implication that you keep the nuclear weapon in your back pocket to threaten default in the near term? It doesn't make a lot of sense to us.
Having said that, we'll see what the House Republicans propose. We'll see what they're able to pass and consider it then. The President said the other day that, in the hypothetical, he would be willing to do this because he thinks that we need to avoid default. But he's not -- he's been very clear. He will not pay ransom in exchange for the Republicans in the House doing their job -- pay ransom to the tea party Republicans to allow Congress to do its job, which is to fund the government and ensure that we do not default. And that position has been steady and clear throughout this period.
Q Why would not that same argument apply during a short-term extension of the debt ceiling where the President agrees to hold negotiations over the budget?
MR. CARNEY: Again, you keep adding things that we don't know -- we haven't seen a bill yet. We haven't seen what the House -- what the Speaker is going to put forward. We don't know what he could pass.
Now, what the Speaker said today is that he thinks there ought to be negotiations, and what the other leaders said is that there ought to be negotiations over our budget priorities. The President has been saying that all year long. House Republicans rejected on 19 different occasions the opportunity to appoint conferees to match the Senate conferees so that they could try to reconcile the two budgets they passed.
But why would it be the right thing to do to keep punishing the American people in order to talk about our budget priorities? That's what they're doing by keeping the government shut down. Why would it be the right thing to do to do continued harm to the American economy? I didn't hear a rationale for why that is acceptable or okay, and I don't think any of you did either.
Q Must the condition of extending the debt ceiling also include reopening the government?
MR. CARNEY: Again, you're asking me hypotheticals. We've said very clearly --
Q It's not a hypothetical. What is your position? I'm not asking you to react to Boehner. I'm just asking if you --
MR. CARNEY: We've said all along that they should turn on the lights and open the government. They should raise the debt ceiling. They should do both. So if they -- I think the President said the other day that if they were to send him a clean debt ceiling extension, no partisan strings attached, he would sign it. But we don't know that that's what we're going to get here. If they send him a -- if the House passes, as they could right now, the bill that passed the Senate to reopen the government at funding levels Republicans set and celebrated, he would sign it.
What we haven't heard is -- we got into this mess because tea party Republicans were insisting that they could use the shutdown of the government and the threat of default to defund Obamacare, or delay Obamacare, basically prevent millions of Americans from getting access to affordable insurance. It was a fool's errand. And the people who are paying the price are the hardworking Americans across this country who suffer when the government is shut down, and who would suffer mightily if Republicans who seem to think default is a game get their way.
I mean, I think we have up here -- these are the elected representatives sent to Washington to fulfill their responsibilities as members of Congress: Representative Ted Yoho just yesterday said, "Someone needs to convince me why we need to raise the debt ceiling."
Warren Buffett, who knows a thing or two about the financial markets and the economy, said, "It should be like a nuclear bomb, basically too horrible to use."
The head of PIMCO, the CEO says, "Default would be a tragedy for America."
On the other hand, Senator Richard Burr, Republican senator, says, "Default is manageable for some time."
The experts -- Macroeconomic Advisers says, "Default would lead to 14 percent unemployment and the worst recession since World War II."
RBC Capital Markets says, "Crossing the debt ceiling would be catastrophic."
Senator Rand Paul, Republican, says, "If you don't raise the debt ceiling, we balance the budget. The world is going to end?"
Well, Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Fed, says, "Default would be very, very costly to our economy."
Martin Feldstein, Reagan's CEA chair, says, "The debt ceiling is a very dangerous thing to play with."
So these are the voices that have been driving this crisis, and it should end. And to the extent that there's an implication in what we heard from House Republican leaders today that they are coming to see the light, that we need to end this crisis -- this manufactured crisis -- that would be a good thing. But the President's position that he's not going to pay ransom to the tea party so that Congress can do its job remains what it was.
Q Obamacare has not been part of the demand -- are you saying, then the President can negotiate?
MR. CARNEY: Jim, I'm not sure how you could have reached that conclusion. The President is not going to pay ransom. I'm saying that this is how we got here. This is the logic that led to the shutdown of the government, and the logic that has led to us getting perilously close to the point beyond which the Treasury can no longer use borrowing authority.
And it's time for a rational approach to be taken by leaders in Congress towards these very serious challenges -- because they're -- as the President said all along, we should sit down and work out our differences, find common ground on our budget priorities. The President has been meeting with Republicans, talking to Republicans all year long in search of that compromise. And we should put everything on the table, and the President has made that clear. It's exemplified in the budget proposal he's put forward.
But what we cannot do is continue to punish the American people, which is what tea party Republicans are doing, in the name of trying to extract partisan demands that they couldn't get through the normal legislative process. And whether that's an attempt to defund or repeal or delay the Affordable Care Act, or any other partisan demand -- maybe tax breaks for millionaires, or anything else they could attach for it -- who benefits from that approach? The American people don't benefit, and the economy doesn't benefit. And that's why the President has taken the position that he's taken.
Q Jay, you have Republicans coming to the White House this afternoon. You've repeatedly said the administration isn't going to negotiate over the debt ceiling or the government shutdown. But Republicans now say they have made this suggestion, this offer of a short-term increase in the debt limit and that if the President rejects that offer we're back to square one. What do you expect from today's meeting, if not some kind of discussion about where to go next?
MR. CARNEY: The President has always said that he is willing to talk about anything. What he will not do is pay a ransom, negotiate over their demands in exchange for Congress doing its fundamental job -- paying our bills, funding our government. And, yes, he looks forward to having a subset of House Republicans here. Our view -- and the reason why we invited all members of Congress to these meetings is that it's often the case that he or others meet with leaders of the House and then find out that the decisions are being driven by other members of the House. So it might have been useful to hear from some of those other members and for them to hear from him.
Be that as it may, he looks forward to the meeting. And he looks forward to hearing more from the Speaker and the other leaders about this proposal that they talked about today. What we haven't seen yet is a bill. What we haven't seen yet is whether or not any bill that they would write could pass. And we'll look forward to having that discussion.
The principle remains throughout, which is the American people should not be punished so that Republican leaders can save face. The American people should not see their economy harmed, and economic growth slowed and job creation slowed and interest rates spiked, because the tea party insists on getting what it could not get through normal legislative means or through the ballot box.
Q Yesterday, you expressed disappointment that not all the members of the Republican caucus were coming to the White House today. What do you lose from them not being here? Were you hoping to see divisions in the Republican Party?
MR. CARNEY: No, no.
Q What does it say about your relationship with Speaker Boehner?
MR. CARNEY: As I just was saying, I think that we -- the President invited all members of Congress because he believes that all of them shoulder the responsibility invested in them when they were sworn into office to uphold their responsibilities. And that includes making sure the government is open and functioning and funded, and making sure that the United States continues to pay its bills on time and maintains its full faith and credit.
When it comes specifically to the House of Representatives and the House Republican conference, I think the President extended the invitation to all members because we have seen that it is a very diverse and fractious conference and that discussions with the leaders have not always -- well, it has become apparent -- and I think many of your colleagues and you yourselves have reported on it -- that a subsection of the House Republican conference has been driving decision-making by the House Republican leadership at least for the past several weeks, and that is in part why we have a shutdown.
The Speaker of the House took an approach to the funding of the government and passing a CR that was acceptable, even though it was Republican spending levels, acceptable to the Democratic leader in the Senate, acceptable to the Democratic leader in the House. And he had to abandon that approach -- or he chose to abandon that approach under pressure from the tea party. So, in our view, it would have been useful to hear from them as well and to speak to them as well, directly.
Q Jay, if a short-term debt ceiling bill comes to the President's desk and it does not carry with it a continuing resolution to reopen the government, the President would at the very least sign that bill -- even though you haven't seen it -- clean debt ceiling bill to raise the nation's debt limit?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I think, as I stated at the top, the President believes that if there's a recognition that we cannot default, that we must ensure that we can continue to pay our bills and therefore the Congress must raise the debt ceiling that they ought to do it for longer than a few weeks. But if a clean debt limit bill is passed he would likely sign it. Again, we would have to see it. We're speaking about a bill that does not at this point exist and it's not at all clear, based on what the Speaker said, that that's what we're going to see.
The point is they don't get anything in exchange for holding the economy hostage. They don't get anything in exchange for doing continued harm to the American people. They ought to -- and they could -- the meeting would go very well indeed if prior to arriving here the House Republicans put on the floor the continuing resolution already passed by the Senate, passed it in the House, and then we would know that the government can reopen and that all the various problems caused by the shutdown could end today.
Q Given the fact that you might not get everything that you want here --
MR. CARNEY: Here's the thing. We're not asking for anything. We're just asking for the government to be open at spending levels set by Republicans, and for Congress -- at the behest of the tea party -- not to default on the United States' full faith and credit for the first time in history. That's not -- we're not asking for concessions. That's just asking for Congress to be responsible.
Q I guess my point is, is that all you may be able to get right now is the clean debt ceiling increase for the time being.
MR. CARNEY: The answer is the President has always said he would sign a clean debt limit increase. It is far preferable that it be longer. And what I said yesterday holds true today -- short term, medium term, long term, it will always be the case when it is Congress's responsibility, again, to ensure that our bills be paid, that he will not pay a ransom, that he will not allow the tea party to hold the American people hostage in exchange for doing its job.
Q But we may have a scenario where the debt ceiling is raised, default is averted, but we may still be in the position of having a government shutdown that is ongoing.
MR. CARNEY: Well, if that were to happen, what would the Republican rationale for that be -- he continued punishment of the American people and the continued harm that that would do to the American economy? Why? Why? Just open the government at levels set by the Republicans. And then let's talk about our budget priorities. Then let's talk about solving these issues for the longer term.
Q You could take it one chunk at a time, you could take one bite at a time, then?
MR. CARNEY: Jim, I've been pretty clear in answering the question.
Q Jay, can I ask a very straightforward --
MR. CARNEY: I'll come back to you, Jim. Go ahead, Jon -- straightforward, I'm all for it.
Q Straightforward. Is the President willing to engage in budget negotiations with the Republicans if the government is still shut down?
MR. CARNEY: I think the President has been very clear on that. If the Republicans think, or the tea party that is driving the Republican decision-making up there thinks, that they can extract concessions by punishing the American people, by punishing the American economy in order to get what they want, the answer is no.
The President is meeting with House Republicans today, so the idea that this is about having a conversation -- well, they're having a conversation today. But they will not, whether it's Obamacare, or tax breaks for millionaires, or any other of their possible demands -- they're not going to get it in exchange for funding the government in a CR that was set by Republicans.
Remember, the whole point of a short-term CR, as proposed by the Speaker originally, basically a clean CR set at existing levels, was to allow for time to have budget negotiations. So what's the rationale for refusing to do that in order to have budget negotiations? There is none. The only -- it's spite. It's deliberate harm to average folks out there, some of whom are directly affected because they can't go to work; others who are affected because they can't get a business loan, or they can't get access to services that are important to them. There is macroeconomic harm done the longer the government is shut down. And there's no logical rationale for it.
And I would say that they're doing harm to the American people, they're doing harm to the American economy, and by all accounts, they're doing harm to the Republican Party, which is bad for America. We need two strong parties that can work together, and not be in a situation where one faction of one house of one branch of government is forcing shutdowns or default.
Q So that was a very long answer to a yes-or-no question, and I just want to be sure I had it right. The President will not engage in budget negotiations with the Republicans until the government is reopened -- is that his position?
MR. CARNEY: Our position is clear. They ought to turn on the lights, they ought to pay our bills. The President has been ready all year long. The fundamental question for Republicans is why is the price of negotiations the President has been willing to engage in all year long doing harm to the American people and doing harm to the American economy and threatening the global economy? It's preposterous.
Q Because the Republicans have proposed this six-month extension, because they -- sorry, six-week -- don't get excited -- six-week extension -- (laughter) -- to give time for these budget negotiations they think will happen while the government remains shut down. Are they deluding themselves?
MR. CARNEY: Just think about the proposition here, Jon. You're suggesting that --
Q No, I'm not suggesting, I'm asking you to respond to what they --
MR. CARNEY: I understand. But again, since we've seen nothing from the Republicans yet beyond a very brief press conference, we don't know what they're actually going to propose or what they may try to get passed in the House. But the suggestion in your question is the Republicans would think that we can resolve all of our significant differences over the budget, and that while we work that out, we should do sustained harm to the American economy and sustained harm to the American people. And their rationale for that would be what?
Q To put pressure on you guys.
MR. CARNEY: I love the crystallization here. (Laughter.) That's right, they want to use harm -- I'm obviously not suggesting that this is your view. I'm saying that the logic here is that they would harm the American economy and the American people in order to try to extract concessions from the President and their counterparts on Capitol Hill. That's an unsustainably bad proposition. It's bad economics. It's bad governance. And it's bad politics.
Q So the President would sign a clean -- truly clean six-week extension of the debt ceiling; he's going to need a clean CR before he will sit down and engage in negotiations on the long-term budget?
MR. CARNEY: Again, to continue to talk about ifs and buts, as the Speaker said, doesn't get us anywhere. We haven't seen anything from the House Republicans yet. The President believes they ought to pay our bills. The President believes they ought to turn on the lights. And the President has always been willing to negotiate and work out and find common ground with Republicans over our long-term budget priorities.
But he's not -- again, going back to, like, the assertion that they're going to use punishing the American people as leverage, doing harm to the American economy as leverage, that's unacceptable to the President and I think he's made that clear.
Q So is today's meeting with the Republicans a negotiation?
MR. CARNEY: I know that they are calling it that. They've called it a dialogue, a conversation. The President is always willing to talk, have a dialogue. What he's not going to do --
Q What do you call it?
MR. CARNEY: -- is pay a ransom.
Q What do you call it?
MR. CARNEY: They're going to have a conversation.
Q But not negotiations?
MR. CARNEY: Well, it depends on what you mean. He's not going to give anything in return for Congress doing their job. He's made that very clear. He's not going to pay ransom to the tea party so that the government opens or the United States doesn't default.
And there are enormous stakes here when you think about the long-term implication of a willingness to do that, to let one faction of one party in one house of one branch of government threaten -- extract ideological demands of any President of either party in the future, and the harm that would do, the sustained damage that would do to the American people, to the middle class and to our economy.
Q So what comes of today's conversation? What good does it do?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I think that it's always useful, as is the case when the President has, on a number of occasions in recent days, for the President and the Speaker to talk, for the President and other members of the Republican Party in Congress to talk, and to hear directly from each other. And that's what will happen today. That's what happened obviously with House Democrats yesterday. It's what will happen with Senate Democrats today and Senate Republicans tomorrow. But he will make clear his view that it is a fundamental responsibility of Congress to fund the government and ensure that we don't default for the first time in our history.
Q So what has to happen before there can be any negotiation?
MR. CARNEY: Again, if there's anything that we've been clear about throughout this process, it's that the Congress needs to do its job -- turn on the lights; stop threatening default; pay our bills. And the President, all year long -- he's bought them dinner, he's had coffees, he's had meetings, he's had phone conversations, and has sincerely engaged -- it's not just been talk for him --
Q Maybe he needs to up the ante.
MR. CARNEY: Well, I know that there's a subsection here that would only raise the debt ceiling if he offered to resign. That's the level of extremism we deal with here when we're talking about this kind of logic.
They need to do their job. They're hurting -- the only people they're hurting -- well, they're hurting obviously the Republican Party, nationally. But they're also hurting their constituents. They're hurting average folks out there. Because as some of these financial experts have noted, default is far worse, but even shutdown has an effect on GDP, which, in turn, has an effect on hiring; which, in turn, has an effect on the ability of families across the country to make ends meet.
And we've been climbing out of this recession for a long time now and we've made significant progress. And this kind of manufactured crisis is a slap in the face to the American people who have been working so hard to get to where they are today and want to keep moving forward, not backward.
Q One other question on another subject. The Congressional Research Service was asked to provide a legal opinion on whether the Pay Our Military Act could legally pay the death gratuity, and they say there appears to be sufficient legal basis upon which a court could hold that the best reading of the term "payment" would be to go ahead and pay the death gratuity.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, it was the Department of Defense's position that they would not be legally able to. This was in the briefing that they gave Congress prior to the debt ceiling and in statements made by an Under Secretary of Defense to the press prior to -- sorry -- prior to October 1st and the decision by Republicans to shut down the government -- that the effect of a lapse in funding would be the Department of Defense would be legally unable to make those payments. So the Pay Our Military Act emerged after that.
It's important to remember -- and we had this discussion yesterday -- from the beginning, we were arguing, don't shut down the government. There would be myriad negative consequences to doing that. We explicitly, through the Department of Defense, noted this specific potential consequence. Every hour of every day since the Republicans shut the government down, we have been asking them to reopen the government so that more consequences would not occur, including this one. The Pay Our Military Act was written, passed and signed into law.
It was my understanding the judgment -- that since it did not explicitly call for or allow for this, that an alternative had to be found. And the President, when he learned that an alternative needed to be found, asked his Chief of Staff, Denis McDonough, to work with and speak to the Office of Management and Budget and with his lawyers to come to a resolution. And, obviously, you know now what it is, which is the Department of Defense is going to be able to --
Q It looked like they could have gotten another opinion.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, that's a legal opinion that I understand was not the judgment at the time. And the President's interest here is that this be resolved. It is always worth noting that this never had to happen if Republicans hadn't shut down the government, if they had, alternatively, decided to allow for the government to stay open at funding levels that were perfectly acceptable to them a month ago, and six months ago, and a year ago, and at spending levels that they hailed as a success and an achievement for them -- until they decided they weren't good enough and they would shut the government down over it.
Q How are you?
MR. CARNEY: I'm great. How are you?
Q Good. Following up on Bill, you started to say but went on to another point that this has been solved. I want to be clear. Are you saying because of the Fisher House saying that they'll pay -- the reason why I ask is the Senate, about an hour ago, passed by unanimous consent legislation that appears to mirror what the House already passed. And so my question really is, will the President sign that into law, or does the White House believe that the Fisher House paying this solves it?
MR. CARNEY: Again, the Fisher House is contracting with the Department of Defense; through that contract, the Department of Defense obligates itself to reimburse the Fisher House upon the reopening of the government. So it's not just the Fisher House taking on the sole responsibility in perpetuity for making these payments.
Q But does that mean you don't need legislation?
MR. CARNEY: It does mean that we don't need legislation. And again, we go from day to day, and we discover new, terrible consequences of shutdown. And when they get attention, lawmakers rush to propose a fix when there is an obvious available fix to avoid all of these negative consequences: Open the government. The only harm you're doing is to the American people and to your party by continuing to shut it down. Just open the government.
Q Would the President veto that legislation or --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I don't think -- first of all, the legislation is not necessary. Our view has been that this piecemeal funding is, again, a gimmick. It's an attempt -- why is it that -- think about the amount of expended energy here to try to piecemeal solve their specific political problems every day when a bad consequence is revealed because of their decision to shut down the government. They could save themselves a lot of trouble and the American people a lot of harm if they would simply open the government.
Q To follow up then, yesterday you took the question about when the President learned about the military death benefits not being paid. A moment ago, you said, everyone should have known because the Pentagon warned everyone, I believe, on September 27th. When did that filter through to the President?
MR. CARNEY: What I can tell you is that in his evening walk with Chief of Staff Denis McDonough on Tuesday, the President raised the concern about death benefits not being paid to deserving families. And Mr. McDonough explained that the Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Defense were trying to find a solution and that the Pay Our Military Act did not appear to fix it. The President directed Mr. McDonough to get creative and get it solved within 24 hours.
The Department of Defense had been approached by the Fisher House Foundation, which had generously offered to make charitable donations to these families from its own funds. The Department of Defense, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, developed a solution overnight. They determined that DOD could enter into a rush agreement with the Fisher House that would essentially make the organization a government contractor that could deliver benefits and enable DOD to reimburse the costs it had incurred after the shutdown ends.
Again, shutdown never should have happened. It was a choice made by Republicans, a choice that, for those who paid attention, included an awareness of the fact that among the many consequences potentially would be this one. When the Pay Our Military Act -- which was a bill supported by both parties and signed by the President to address some of the unfair consequences to our military families and those who support them -- was passed, and it was viewed by some at least that it did not solve this specific problem, the President said, get creative and solve it in 24 hours. And they solved it in less than that.
Q Thank you for answering that question. Two other short ones. I want to just clarify, because I know you've been asked several times and at the risk of belaboring the point, but Gene Sperling, earlier today, I think sat down with Ron Brownstein of the National Journal, and suggested that he'd be willing -- that the President would be willing -- and this gets at what Jon and I think Jim were asking, and others -- that the President would be willing to sign a clean debt ceiling without reopening the government. And I've heard you answer it a couple different ways, because you have said over and over they should turn the lights on and reopen the government; they should also take default off the table. Gene Sperling, one of the top economic advisors, suggested you could do one without the other. I understand everyone is trying to nuance this, but just can you state clearly, does it have to be both to then enter into negotiations?
MR. CARNEY: That's the part -- see, you just added something to what Gene said that I think reflected what I've said, what the President said, which is that he wants Congress to do both. He wants Congress to fulfill both of its fundamental responsibilities -- open the government, i.e., turn on the lights; pay our bills; i.e., do not allow for default to happen for the first time. And if Congress takes action without partisan strings attached on either of those, that would be a good thing. And the President said himself that he would sign it.
Q But the Boehner proposal is only to do one.
MR. CARNEY: Again, I heard a lot of things said. What I haven't seen is a bill. And one thing that I think the Speaker and the Leader and other Republican leaders in the House sort of circled around was this idea that we should be sitting down and having sustained, serious negotiations about our budget priorities and reaching common ground and finding consensus and compromise. And the President has long held the same view. What he does not believe is that the American people should be punished day after day in exchange for Republicans being willing to sit down and have a negotiation.
What is the rationale for that? What are they seeking to achieve by shutting the government down day after day after day, when the President has been willing all year long to have these conversations and negotiations, and has demonstrated far more than they have thus far a willingness to offer proposals that are difficult for Democrats to accept as long as they are part of a comprehensive and balanced approach to dealing with our long-term challenges?
Q Last one, promise. Important story overnight: The Libyan Prime Minister apparently was kidnapped by gunmen. Then there were reports suggesting he was released. My question would be what do you know about it? And has the President been briefed? I assume he has. What has he been told, and what's the President's reaction to all this?
MR. CARNEY: Well, certainly the President has been briefed, and I can tell you that we condemn the kidnapping of the Libyan Prime Minister, and we are pleased to hear that he has been released. The United States supports Libya's efforts to fulfill the aspirations of the 2011 revolution for a democratic, secure and prosperous Libya. The people of Libya deserve a democracy based on the rule of law and respect for human rights. We will continue to work closely with the Libyan government as it continues to build its capacity to deliver security and good governance to the people of Libya.
And I understand that the Prime Minister himself has now addressed the events, and I would refer you to him and his office for details about what happened.
Q Very quickly, about that act that we were just talking about, the Honoring the Families of Our Fallen Soldiers Act -- you said legislation is not needed. So a very simple yes or no, since the Senate has passed it, will the President veto that or will it just sit?
MR. CARNEY: Again, I'll have to -- when I walked out here, I was unaware that legislation had been acted on in the Senate. The President directed that this be resolved, and it has been. What is preposterous is this notion that we should piecemeal fix all the consequences caused by shutdown. Because, guess what, even the most competent Congress in the world couldn't do that without still causing harm to the American people. If they're concerned about the harm done by shutdown, they should open the government.
Q We'll let you find out what the position is now that you've been made aware of the Senate's movement on that. Specifically, in the conversation the President had with the American people and with reporters in this room just a couple of days ago, at one point he apologized that Americans have to put up with this right now. Has the President reached out to the families of those servicemembers who did not receive death benefits and apologized to them that they didn't receive those death benefits?
MR. CARNEY: I don't have any private conversations to read out to you. The President took action to solve this problem, ordered a creative solution to solve this problem, a problem caused by House Republicans who decided to shut the government down.
And I fail to see anyone in the House Republican leadership explain why, why this is a good thing to do, in exchange -- by the way, these benefits were held up because Republicans wanted to defund Obamacare. These benefits were held up because they wanted to get what they could not get through the legislative process, what they could not get from the Supreme Court of the United States, what they could not get in a national election for President.
That's why all of these consequences that you read about and see and hear about have occurred. And they're all unnecessary, because all the President has asked for, and what all the Senate and House Democrats have asked for is that the House pass a continuing resolution funding the government at levels that House Republicans support. What is so hard about that? Why punish the American people over refusing to -- because you refuse to accept what you wanted?
Q Secretary of Veteran Affairs Eric Shinseki yesterday testified that if the shutdown continues into late October, compensation payments for more than 3.8 million veterans will not be made in the month of November. Acknowledging in this conversation you spoke about the President pushing for creative measures in terms of death benefits, will the President push for creative measures to help those --
MR. CARNEY: Peter, my answer is the same. There are so many consequences of shutdown that Congress has a responsibility to resolve all of them with one vote in the House of Representatives that would receive a majority -- votes from Democrats and Republicans. Open the government. Solve this problem. And then, let's get about the business of dealing with our longer-term budget challenges.
Q From your discussions with the first row my takeaway is that -- (laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Well said, sir.
Q My takeaway -- and thank you, row one --
Q A negotiation.
Q Conversation.
Q My takeaway is that the President is open to signing the short-term raising of the debt limit even if he does not get from Congress an accompanying clean CR -- is that correct?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I'll just try again. The President believes -- the answer is yes, but he is not paying a ransom for Congress to do its job. Because the only people who get hurt -- well, the American people get hurt when the Republicans shut the government down. The American people get hurt when those who believe default is not a problem are listened to and followed.
Q Could we just take a yes? (Laughter.)
Q We just need a definition of ransom.
THE PRESIDENT: The President of the United States stood before you at this podium and answered this question.
Q You're saying he won't negotiate. You're saying he'll sign a clean extension of the debt ceiling, but he is not going to negotiate on the other stuff until the shutdown is over?
Q Yes? Yes?
MR. CARNEY: Yes, the President will not pay a ransom for --
Q Yes, that's all. Yes.
Q It's the "pay a ransom" --
Q You see it as a ransom, but it's a metaphor that doesn't serve our purposes of figuring out what's actually going on.
Q We just don't want to write it wrong.
MR. CARNEY: But you guys are just too literal then, right?
Q We just want to accurately report what's happening.
MR. CARNEY: The closing of the American mind and failure to appreciate metaphor and simile.
Q Can you just break it down in regular terms?
Q I mean, like, we're trying to be accurate in our description of what's going on. We just want to make sure we're not saying the wrong thing.
Q No negotiations.
MR. CARNEY: You're asking me a lot of questions based on a bill that does not exist and may never exist, and doesn't even reflect what the Speaker of the House and his colleagues discussed a couple of hours ago. So I think we ought to see whether they're serious about putting the matches and the gasoline aside when it comes to threatening default. And if they're serious, we'll evaluate what they've moved forward on.
What the President has been crystal-clear about all along is that it is unacceptable to him that the Republican Party, driven by the tea party caucus, try to extract ideological objectives in exchange for opening the government and raising the debt ceiling.
Q So your position is that until then, you'll continue to obfuscate? (Laughter.)
Q You said we need to see whether they're serious about "putting the matches and the gasoline aside." You've also said they want to keep a "nuclear weapon in their back pocket." So is keeping a nuclear weapon in the back pocket the same as putting the matches and gasoline aside? (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: Where are we going --
Q Or even better, can we stop talking about matches and gasoline and nuclear weapons and start talking about what's actually happening?
MR. CARNEY: Well, I wish we knew. And I think that there is nobody who has followed the machinations in the House Republican conference for the last several weeks -- and, you might argue, for the last several years -- who has any clear picture about what they're going to do and when, and whether they're going to do the right thing by the American people, which is open the government and raise the debt ceiling.
Q Okay, so just to use your statements, do you see "putting the gasoline and matches aside" as consistent with "keeping a nuclear weapon in your back pocket?"
MR. CARNEY: Okay, let me explain those metaphors and I'll refrain from using them. The President strongly believes that it would be far preferable if Congress were to pass a bill that would ensure that the United States could pay its bills for a longer duration, longer than the hypothetical six weeks that has currently been discussed.
But as he told you guys just two days ago, if a clean debt -- a clean bill raising the debt ceiling for six weeks were to hit his desk, he would sign that. It would be a sign -- it would be at least for a short period of time the removal of that threat. He thinks that the implication of a willingness only to raise the debt ceiling for six weeks is that Republicans haven't gotten over their obsession with using the threat of default as a means to try to extract concessions from him to do harm to the world economy, the American economy, and the American middle class in exchange for trying to achieve their political demands.
But he answered this question; I answered this question. What remains to be seen is what the Speaker of the House will actually put on paper and what he could get through his rather disparate conference.
Q But if he signs one without getting the other, isn't he negotiating with threats?
MR. CARNEY: He's signing a bill.
Q He's just signing the debt ceiling, let's say, and you still don't have the government open. I think the question we're all trying to get at is that, is he then negotiating with still the threat of --
MR. CARNEY: By signing a bill?
Q Yes. Well, he signs one of them. But you're -- obviously, the President also said at the news conference and you've said he wants both. We get that. He wants both.
MR. CARNEY: Yes, he wants both.
Q But if he only gets one, he's negotiating --
MR. CARNEY: Ed -- and I think we should let some others in the other row, as Peter said --
Q Sure. Please.
Q Yes.
MR. CARNEY: -- speak and ask questions. But what he has said is that Congress needs to do both. If does one, that's a good thing. But he will still insist that they do the other.
Q Okay.
MR. CARNEY: Margaret.
Q Thanks. I have a couple.
MR. CARNEY: The third row is going to be really mad.
Q We'll tough it out. Just saying. (Laughter.)
MR. CARNEY: April is over your right shoulder.
Q We know that he would sign the clean debt limit. Will he do the kind of obvious interim step and ask the House Democrats to support that clean debt limit without the CR, to make it happen?
MR. CARNEY: I think his position is clear. I've stated it; he told you two days ago; I've restated it. I think beginning to -- now the level of hypothetical here is reaching the absurd because we don't know --
Q It's October 10th. That's why. I mean, it's just that there's --
MR. CARNEY: But you're asking me -- this is all in the hands of a Speaker whose direction has been unclear, I think it's fair to say, for the past several weeks. So we heard from him and other leaders today, and we'll see what they are actually going to propose, and evaluate it once we see it. But it does nobody any good for me to speculate, based on you speculating, what we might support that we may never see from them. They know our position.
I mean, I think it's fair to say, in the conversations the President has had with the Speaker and the public statements he made, that it's pretty clear what his position is both to them and to you. And so we'll see if they do the right thing -- if, in fact, they've decided to cease listening to Jeff Sessions, who should be reassuring the world that the bondholders will be getting their payments -- an assertion that seems to contradict what J.P. Morgan said earlier this year, which is prioritization would be like the financial equivalent of that Hieronymus Bosch painting of hell. Who are you going to believe?
Q Wait, wait, wait.
MR. CARNEY: Sorry. Oh, you had two, that's right. Margaret. (Laughter.)
Q Nice try, though. So in today's meeting at 4:35 p.m. or whatever --
MR. CARNEY: I just want to say that I'm probably the first and maybe the last Press Secretary who's ever gotten to say "Hieronymus Bosch" from the podium. (Laughter.)
Q So far.
Q I think I had that poster in college. (Laughter.) Anyway. So this --
MR. CARNEY: Tell me more.
Q Right. No, no. So in today's meeting, are we just looking, then, at purely a discussion of the six-week debt limit extension, since you're not going to do the ransom/shutdown thing? Then is the half-hour, hour, or however long today takes -- do you think that the boundaries of that are going to be just how to extend the debt ceiling? Or do you think you are still holding out hope --
MR. CARNEY: I don't know.
Q -- that it will be the discussion of both today?
MR. CARNEY: The President will discuss both. The President will say what he's said already to leaders of both parties, which is that Congress ought to act and open the government, stop punishing the American people, stop punishing the middle class, stop doing deliberate harm on a repetitive basis to the economy, and instead open the government, raise the debt ceiling. And then let's do what Presidents and members of Congress have done over many years and decades, which is sit down and hammer out our differences and reach a compromise.
And the President has demonstrated, in the wake of his reelection, an ample willingness to meet the Republicans halfway. And what we haven't seen this year, unfortunately, is a similar willingness. And when Democrats in the Senate responded to the insistence by House Republicans that they pass a budget so that we could return to regular order and do what Congresses have done for decades and pass a budget that is representative of a compromise between the Senate and the House -- that's what the House demanded -- so the Senate said okay and they did it. And the House then said, never mind. And 19 times, Senate Democrats asked House Republicans to do what they said they wanted to do, and 19 times, House Republicans said no. And today, we hear they want to have a conference. Well, good.
Q So in making those points to the House Republicans, will the President at that point plan to say, "And I will pass the" --
MR. CARNEY: Before I read out the meeting, I'm going to let the meeting happen.
Q Granted that the President is an advocate for nuclear nonproliferation, both foreign and domestic, I do want to ask you about some real things that are being talked about on the Hill that aren't exactly a clean debt ceiling increase. The House Republicans are talking about adding in language that would bind the Treasury Secretary, prevent him from using extraordinary measures. I want to know if that's something that is acceptable, possible, unacceptable. And then I've got a follow-up to that on the Senate side.
MR. CARNEY: Okay. I will, when it gets to what they're saying versus what they've actually put on paper and submitted, beg your forgiveness to say that I will wait -- we will wait to respond until we actually see a bill. House Republican leaders say a lot of things, and I'm not going to respond to all of them. Let's see what they actually propose, see if they're serious about raising the debt ceiling and removing the threat of default, and for how long they're willing to do that, and then we can assess how we move forward.
Q So to clarify, you're not ruling that out? And then the actual follow-up I wanted --
MR. CARNEY: Again, I'm not going to respond to -- we don't know what they're proposing. I get that anonymous Senate -- or I mean House Republican staff may be telling reporters -- good staffers, good reporters -- and maybe what they're saying is accurate, maybe it's not. But in the end, we respond to actual proposed legislation. And when we get it we'll be able to make that assessment. Fair enough?
Q I'll assume the same answer for the Senate side.
MR. CARNEY: Excellent. (Laughter.)
Q Jay, I want to go back to the issue of what's happening in this evening's meeting with the GOP leadership, the House GOP leadership, and your definition of ransom. What's the President going to say to the GOP leadership about corporate tax cuts, offshore drilling, Keystone pipeline and Obamacare this afternoon? What's he going to say to them, and the other issues that --
MR. CARNEY: I'll read out the meeting once it happens. What I know the President will say is that it is the right and responsible thing to do for the elected members of Congress to stop punishing the American people by shutting the government down, and stop threatening further punishment on the American people by threatening default, and just take that off the table. And then let's get about the business of having a serious negotiation about our budget priorities, something the President has amply demonstrated he wants to do.
Q All right. And then also, we understand some Democratic leaders from the meeting last evening said the President made it clear that he is willing to negotiate for investments in early childhood education, children's activities and infrastructure investments. Could you talk a little bit about that? Some of those Democrats are talking about what the President said he wants to put on the table with the negotiations.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, you're talking about what a normal budget negotiation would look like, absent these threats -- I'll refrain from metaphors -- absent the threats of continued shutdown or default. And I think what the President was talking about was the investments that are in his budget. And he believes very strongly and passionately that these are wise investments that we need to make in our children and their education, and wise investments that we need to make in key areas to allow our economy to grow, and our infrastructure and research and development.
So that's the proposal he's put on the table. Those are: the better bargain for the middle class that the President has been talking about, and there are proposals in his budget and proposals that he's been talking about since, that he would, in a budget negotiation, argue passionately for. And he believes firmly that we are our best and our strongest as a nation and as an economy when the middle class is expanding, and when the middle class feels secure. That has been proven out in our past, and we need to return to that focus, rather than the kind of political games and manufactured crises that have been occupying everyone's time these last several weeks.
Q And on something else related to the government shutdown, there are some persons, particularly the American Academy of Pediatrics, who are very concerned about some of the kids -- 200 to 300 kids who have metabolic and genetic issues that need treatment from the NIH, and they're concerned about funding. And they're feeling like the President needs to work on that as well to get some kind of special funding in the midst of this shutdown. Is there --
MR. CARNEY: Again, what is absolutely true is that there are terrible consequences of shutdown. There are inconveniences and then there are real hardships caused by it. And Congress needs to open the government. This is the result -- the potential for -- I don't know of the specific example in any detail, but this is the result of the decision by Republicans to refuse to accept funding levels that they once said met their -- fulfilled their dreams of what they could get out of Democrats and the President.
So the responsible thing to do for those children, for military families, for veterans, for hardworking Americans across the country, for small businesses who need loans, is to open the government. The President is not asking for anything in return.
Q But, Jay, a lot of the question --
MR. CARNEY: April, I can't answer every specific instance of hardship or consequence.
Q I understand. But these are life-or-death issues. And then some of these people are concerned that our President --
MR. CARNEY: Right, I get it.
Q -- is allowing monies go other places. What about these issues?
MR. CARNEY: April, I get it. There are just countless stories of the negative effects of shutdown, so let's end the shutdown. The President is not asking for anything in return. No partisan strings attached, just end the shutdown.
Q Jay, for the outside world, if I may, as an outside observer looking at this dispute, without resorting to metaphors, is this good? Is it a sign of strength or weakness of the American democracy?
MR. CARNEY: The greatness of democracy is that it allows for free and open debate, and allows for the freely elected representatives of the American people -- or of any people where democracy has taken root to have themselves heard. And that is the case here, even when it is messy, and even when there are less-then-ideal outcomes to that debate.
But it is the responsibility of leadership and being elected to Congress -- in this case, here in the United States, or parliaments elsewhere -- to act responsibly and to advocate for your passionately held positions, but not to the point of punishing the people you serve because you don't get what you want. And that is what's happening here.
So obviously, observers of this debate both in the United States and around the world will draw conclusions based on what they see and what they know about our history. What I think is obvious is that the greatest nation on Earth, when it comes to the economy and its extremely valuable position as the safest investment in the world, should not toy with that, which is why we should not flirt with default, why we should not listen to those, against the collected wisdom of a whole lot of experts in the field, who say default wouldn't be bad -- because it would be. It would be terrible.
Q Jay, I come here from the IMF. And this is exactly what --
MR. CARNEY: I thought you came from Russia. (Laughter.)
Q No, I came to the briefing from a briefing at IMF. They are holding their annual meetings now. And this is exactly what they are talking about. This is the main subject for them, too. But they are saying what the question is -- because I am supposed to ask questions, right?
MR. CARNEY: Hopefully.
Q Who is speaking for the Americans? Because there is a commitment from the U.S. at the IMF, approved a couple years ago, two or three years ago, for the --
MR. CARNEY: Sorry, Andrei, I think for everyone's sake, what's the question?
Q Yes. At the IMF, there is a reform plan approved by the United States. It's been held back two years by the U.S. Congress. Does it mean that in the future, when the U.S. makes a commitment, it needs to say it is a commitment made by the President and the Congress? Who speaks for the U.S. on foreign policy with one voice?
MR. CARNEY: On foreign policy?
Q Yes.
MR. CARNEY: The President.
Q The President. So what about the Congress?
MR. CARNEY: Well, obviously the Congress plays a very important role in a variety of ways when it comes to the conduct of foreign policy and the funding of foreign policy initiatives. But I think if you read the Constitution, that delineation of power is pretty clear.
Don -- sorry, the person next to Don.
Q Thanks, Jay. Nick with Gannett Wisconsin.
MR. CARNEY: Hey.
Q Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's recent op-ed called on the President to take a page from his governing book. What's your response to that?
MR. CARNEY: I didn't see it.
Q He was talking about government reforms, taking your medicine, that type of thing.
MR. CARNEY: Well, again, I didn't see it. I can tell you that the President is very interested in having serious-minded negotiations with Republicans over funding our budget priorities. The President would also note that since he has been President, our deficits have fallen at the fastest rate since well before you were born, and that he wants to continue that work. And that requires tough choices, but it also requires investing in our economy so that it continues to grow.
Growth begets jobs. Jobs helps the economy grow further, helps us reduce our deficits. And we need to make the right choices and the right decisions. And the President looks forward, as he has all year long in his many meetings and conversations with Republican lawmakers here in Washington, to the ability to have those compromise-focused negotiations.
Q Jay, can you tell us more about the President's pattern of taking evening strolls with his Chief of Staff, which is an interesting comment that you made. I don't remember him taking evening strolls with Rahm or Jack Lew. Can you just elaborate on it -- is that a new habit that he has?
MR. CARNEY: I don't know -- I recall he would do that with previous Chiefs of Staff. It's a nice place to take a walk and a good place to have a conversation. So it is true that the President and Chief of Staff on occasion go for a stroll and talk about all the various issues that have arisen throughout a day. And unfortunately, the spectacular weather that we've been experiencing in Washington has come to an abrupt end, but maybe it will improve in the near future.
Thanks, all, very much.
Q Does the White House consider Ronald Reagan a financial expert?
MR. CARNEY: Well, we threw that in there because Ronald Reagan said -- I appreciate the -- here's the compare/contrast. There's Steve King, presumably who, I assume -- I don't want to put words in his mouth -- admires President Reagan, says that "I don't think the credit of the United States is going to be collapsed. All of this talk has been a lot of false demagoguery." And I wonder if he thinks that President Reagan, when he said, "Bringing the government to the edge of default threatens the holders of government bonds and those who rely on Social Security and veterans benefits" in September of 1987 was engaging in a lot of false demagoguery. I doubt it.
Q So henceforth we can consider the White House agreeing with President Reagan as a financial expert?
MR. CARNEY: I think we can agree that President Reagan was right when he said we shouldn't default or flirt with default.
Thanks very much.


text:
Transcranial direct current stimulation can make your brain work better. DARPA proved it can make you better at video games, the U.S. Air Force has shown it cuts drone remote-pilot training in half, and Harvard researchers have used it to treat depression. So what is this magical device that powerfully manipulates your brain function and where can you get one?
It's not much more than a battery and a bunch of wires. In fact, you could actually make it yourself.
But that doesn't mean that you should try it at home. Though no one so far has reported seizures or other negative effects, sending any amount of electricity into your brain without the supervision of a medical professional is not the best idea. That all said, it's shockingly easy to build a transcranial direct current stimulator, or tDCS, just like the one used in all of those experiments.
All you need is a 9-volt battery hooked up to some kind of resistor—(one DIYer used a Radio Shack Electronics Learning Lab)—and electrodes, which can be purchased on eBay.
Folks have been talking about the mind-hacking benefits of low-level electrical brain stimulation for years, and scientists even say we should have access to it. Why hasn't anyone developed a product one could buy so we don't have to McGyver our own? Scientific American's blog today discusses the ethics of a so-called "electrical thinking cap." Would it be fair? Would parents be weirdly manipulating their kids' brains? Would it be like electronic brain doping?
Maybe the explanation is simpler. Maybe no one sees a profit in something that any middle-school science student could build for 10 bucks? Sure, you could maybe buy the one the Harvard researchers used, but it's really intended for clinics and costs close to $1,000. So where's the consumer version?
I can imagine folks paying for something that's beautifully designed, painless (which apparently it is for the most part, minus some discomfort getting the thing to adhere to your head, depending on how much hair you have), and makes you smarter. Better yet, it sounds like a great app! Can one of you Y combinator kids get on that please? [Scientific American]
Update: Sgt. Michael Conte, who served in Iraq for the U.S. Army, emailed me to let me know he uses Alpha Stim cranial electrotherapy stimulator, which costs around $600 and requires a prescription, to treat symptoms of a minor brain injury suffered in 2007 following an IED explosion. "During the LONG process of my treatment and some of my comrades' treatment we have been given nuero stimulation and nuero feedback. One of the devices we are authorized to buy and use is the Alpha-stim. For some people it increases mood, for others it's a pep like caffeine, for some it calms them down enough to sleep, for me it clears the fog which I consistently live in due to my injury. The results last most of the day for me and allow me to continue my job with little loss of function," Conte told me. Thank you, sergeant, for sharing your story and for your service!
Image: Neuropsychopharmacology

subset: commoncrawl


text:
All the twelve animals gathered at the river bank and jumped in. Unknown to the ox, the rat had jumped upon his back. As the ox was about to jump ashore, the rat jumped off the ox's back, and won the race. The pig, who was very lazy, ended up last. That is why the rat is the first year of the animal cycle, the ox second, and the pig last.
The Chinese animal signs are a 12-year cycle used for dating the years. They represent a cyclical concept of time, rather than the Western linear concept of time. In the Chinese calendar, the beginning of the year falls somewhere between late January and early February.
The Chinese have adopted the Western calendar since 1911, but the lunar calendar is still used for festive occasions such as the Chinese New Year. Many Chinese calendars will print both the solar dates and the Chinese lunar dates.
A cultural sidelight of the animal signs in Chinese folklore is that horoscopes have developed around the animal signs, much like monthly horoscopes in the West have been developed for the different moon signs, Pisces, Aries, etc. For example, a Chinese horoscope may predict that a person born in the Year of the Horse would be, cheerful, popular, and loves to compliment others. These horoscopes are amusing, but not regarded seriously by the Chinese people.


text:
Mirror, mirror…
We've had our PSPs nearly a year, but aside from using them as Lumines machines or to cut through an early rash of impressive ports, they've seen about as much daylight as we have. The little black system's future is about to get a lot a brighter, though, thanks to the looming release of Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror.
For those of you who were literally born yesterday, the Syphon Filter series originated on the PSX as one of the games that helped define third-person console shooting. Although the series hasn't made many strides in recent years, it's still Playstation royalty, and we're glad to see it blasting its way onto our PSPs.
Part of what made the series so great in the first place were its involved, well-integrated plots, so we were relieved to find that Dark Mirror stays true to its pedigree with lots of cut-scenes, dialogue and intrigue. We're a little murky on the details, but it appears a nefarious organization known only as Red Section is up to no good in Alaska, and the U.S. government has called in Gabe Logan, a.k.a. you, to put their plans on ice.
When the talking stops, the action begins, and it's as good as anything we've seen for the PSP. Running around is managed with the thumb nub and aiming with the face-buttons, as though they were a second analog stick. When you spot a bad guy, you can either line up a shot manually or lock-on with the L button. Once you're properly aimed, fire away with the R button. Pointing and clicking is now as simple as clicking and clicking.
With this control setup you'll be hard-pressed to run through levels manually landing head shots, but you won't have any trouble figuring out how to simply blast people. The action isn't just run and gun, though. We were frequently faced by squads of enemies capable of ending our mission if we took the Rambo approach, so we deftly hid around a corner and picked them off one by one.
Much like Metal Gear and Splinter Cell, the Syphon Filter series as all about presenting dangerous, dynamic situations and letting you figure out how to survive. To this end, Dark Mirror arms you with lots of different guns. Need to pick off a patrolling foe without alerting his friends? Try the silenced pistol. A handful of enemies onto you? Kill 'em loud with your SMG.
You'll also need to use gadgets to access sealed areas and bypass stubborn computers. With an assortment of goggles borrowed from Sam Fisher, Gabe Logan can utilize nightvision, infrared and electro-magnetic vision modes, as well as use a zip-line to access distant balconies or travel along rooftops.
The scenarios we played through were a nicely varied bunch, requiring us to do everything from mow down throngs of enemies, climb a satellite tower and flip a switch to thwart a giant explosion, cover our partner's six with a sniper rifle while she made her way through a level, and defeat a flame-throwing mini-boss with some well-placed shots.
The whole package, which took about ten minutes to play through, looked great on our PSPs and ran smoothly. It also sounded good with fittingly suspenseful music and a ton of spoken dialogue. The flamethrower boss even talked some smack, at least until we shot him in the gasoline and made him blow up and die screaming. When was the last time you did that on a bus ride?
Hopefully never, but you will when Syphon Filter: Dark Mirror ships this March. It may not reinvent the gun, but as far as we're concerned it does something even more important – it brings a great Playstation series to the PSP.


text:
A reported buyout attempt by China's largest computer chip maker of U.S. based Micron Technology isn't likely to succeed, according to industry analysts.
Micron is one of the top five semiconductor makers in the world, and it has a lot to offer Tsinghua Unigroup, which has reportedly bid $23 billion for the Boise-based firm.
In a reply to Computerworld earlier today, Micron denied it has received any offer from Tsinghua.
Several analysts said The Wall Street Journal's report of a bid could likely be a "trial balloon." If real, however, the deal could become the largest Chinese takeover of a U.S. company on record.
"I think Micron can turn down/reject the offer unless it becomes very attractive," Fang Zhang, a memory analyst with market research firm IHS, said in an email reply to Computerworld.
Gregory Wong, an analyst with Forward Insights, said he's been aware of "rumors" of a Micron buyout for more than a month, and "not receiving a formal offer does not mean there have been no discussions."
What makes a potential deal even more interesting is that Intel has penned a deal for a 20% stake in Tsinghua, and Intel and Micron have also been involved in a close, long-term memory development partnership.
So, on the surface, a buyout of Micron would not likely affect any current or future partnerships with Intel.
As a result of its partnership with Micron, Intel gets half of the company's Utah fabrication plant's output sold it at cost. Intel, in turn, helps Micron design chips and develop new lithography processes.
What would Tsinghua Univgroup get from the deal?
It isn't surprising that a government-sponsored Chinese firm plans to enter the DRAM and NAND markets, considering the smartphone growth in China. While growth has slowed in recent quarters, China's smartphone market is still the largest in the world, according to IDC. During the first quarter of this year, 98.8 million smartphones shipped in China, IDC said.
Jim Handy, an analyst with Objective Analysis in Los Gatos, Calif., however, is surprised that the company would plan to enter the market via an acquisition versus organic development.
"We have been telling our clients for the past few years that either China or India would create a new DRAM/NAND manufacturing company, especially since memory chip makers have enjoyed a long period of profits, and this usually motivates outsiders to invest in new DRAM makers," he wrote in an analysis.
"We have even heard that China's upcoming 5-year plan would include taking a 20% share of the memory chip business, which last year would have represented some $12 billion in revenues," he added.
Acquiring Micron would give Tsinghua Unigroup a major stake in the DRAM and NAND marketplace.
Micron "has a strong position in both NAND flash and DRAM sales, and has shown itself to be quite resilient during repeated market downturns that have cut DRAM supplier ranks from 28 companies in the middle-1990s to only 3 today," Handy added.
Micron is the world's second largest DRAM producer behind SK Hynix, and is the third largest NAND memory maker in a market led by Toshiba/SanDisk and Samsung, according to IHS.
Micron is also ranked third in terms of DRAM revenue (sales), behind Samsung and SK Hynix and third in terms of NAND flash revenue behind Samsung and Toshiba (SK Hynix comes in fourth).
A buyout of Micron would give China instant "self-sufficiency" in DRAM and NAND semiconductor production, IHS's Zhang said, a market the country has yet to break into with any significance.
Zhang added, however, said any such deal would not be easy and would require a long haul in convincing the U.S. government to okay it based on "security concerns."
Handy agreed.
"This kind of deal often must pass a lot of government scrutiny before it closes, and that could take several months," he said. "An exhaustive U.S. government review is very likely in this case."
What is Tsinghua Unigroup?
Tsinghua Unigroup is China's leader in fabless semiconductor manufacturing.
Handy referred to Tsinghua Unigroup as a "relatively puzzling company" that is managed by Tsinghua University in China. The university has posted a sparse outline of its work on the web.
"Unigroup itself has a Chinese-only website, which does have an "English" button that appears not to work," Handy wrote.
A subsidiary of Tsinghua Holdings Co., Ltd., Tshinghua Unigroup is, in fact, also funded by Tsinghua University. Last year, the chipmaker penned a series of development agreements with Intel Corp., which has also had a development partnership with Micron for more than seven years.
In its deal with Tsinghua, Intel agreed to invest about $1.5 billion for a minority stake of approximately 20% of the holding company under Tsinghua Unigroup, which will own Spreadtrum Communications and RDA Microelectronics. Both Spreadtrum and RDA are leading fabless semiconductor companies in China. The Intel/Tsinghua agreement is still on hold pending U.S. government approval.
At the time of the agreement, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich pointed to China as a huge market for smartphones and as having the largest number of Internet users in the world.
"These agreements with Tsinghua Unigroup underscore Intel's 29-year-long history of investing in and working in China," Krzanich stated. "This partnership will also enhance our ability to support a wider range of mobile customers in China and the rest of the world by more quickly delivering a broader portfolio of Intel architecture and communications technology solutions."
Micron is under no pressure to sell
According to Handy, Micron's management is bullish about its prospects for the remainder of the year, and they may decide that the reported offered price, which is 19% above today's closing price, is insufficient.
"Micron stock was trading in January at nearly twice today's value," Handy said.
As of January 2015, Micron's market capitalization was $32 billion.
Additionally, there has been a lot of concern recently that the Chinese economy may collapse, Handy said.
"If the [U.S.] government approval process takes too long, then a China bubble burst could well prevent this deal from materializing," he said.


text:
LONGWOOD, Fla. (RNS) There's a price to pay for becoming the voice of moderate conservatism and coalition politics. Even more so for refusing to march in lockstep with the Republican Party.
Ask the Rev. Joel Hunter of Northland Church, Florida's largest evangelical congregation. Hunter, 65, says his suburban megachurch may have lost as many as 1,500 members, or 10 percent of its membership, as a result of his ecumenical and political activism.
But the compact, upbeat, Midwesterner is sanguine — likening membership departures to separating the wheat from the chaff.
"There is no such thing as safe leadership," he said.
Hunter, who may be best known as President Obama's spiritual counselor, still has plenty of church members — around 13,500. And he is not the first evangelical to pay a price for taking a less traveled path.
Fellow evangelical Richard Cizik took a harder hit in 2008 when he spoke out on social issues such as gay civil unions and global climate change and lost his job as chief Washington lobbyist for the National Association of Evangelicals.
Cizik said Hunter's amiable demeanor will help him, but there's no escaping criticism when an evangelical pastor talks about political cooperation.
"Give Joel Hunter credit," said Cizik, who now heads the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good. "He has guts, depth of conviction, and hasn't lost his integrity, nor his prophetic voice."
A good example of that leadership was Hunter's recent two-day visit to Washington, D.C.
First, Hunter talked immigration reform with Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., alongside a group of Florida Jewish religious leaders. The next day, Hunter attended an annual Jewish-evangelical leaders' dialogue, whose agenda includes issues such as human trafficking, prison reform and religious persecution around the world.
"When I advocate for these issues, I see that as part of the natural influence of the church," he said. "Most of our members believe that it's a good thing that I'm involved in policy and political matters."
Yet pointedly, Hunter did not stay in Washington for the kickoff of the annual Faith & Freedom Coalition Conference, a magnet for conservative national evangelical leaders, though he is a strong opponent of abortion and gay marriage.
Hunter's high-profile activism is not new. He delivered a benediction at the Democratic National Convention. Last year, Northland hosted a talk about exercise and nutrition by First Lady Michelle Obama.
Yet in the 2008 Florida Republican Presidential primary, Hunter supported — and contributed to — the campaign of former Arkansas governor and former Baptist minister Mike Huckabee.
After 40 years as a Republican, Hunter changed his registration to Independent three years ago, explaining in one statement that he did so in part because of the GOP's "growing uncivil/personal attack tone."
"We expect the party out of power to be more negative, but the strident hyper-partisanship was something I could not support — in either party."
In a veiled reference to the Tea Party, Hunter released another statement saying, "the outside voices hijacking legitimate political debate is not something of which I will be a part."
In addition to his relationship with the Obamas, Hunter has been a national leader in drawing evangelicals into "Creation Care," a Christian form of environmentalism aimed at mitigating global climate change.
Over the past decade, he and a cohort of younger, evangelical leaders have called on others to lower their voices and shift the political center of gravity from the far right to the pragmatic center-right. They have also asked their congregations and organizations to make common cause with other faiths and denominations despite fundamental differences with mainline Protestant and non-Christian faiths over abortion and gay marriage.
To church member Richard Milam, Hunter's comments about "turning down the political rhetoric" sounded like a "left wing talking point," and for him it was the last straw. He left Northland not long after.
"I was aware of Joel's relationship with the president and his eagerness to have a voice in the political forum," Milam said.
He was willing to put that aside because of his respect and affection for Hunter. But Milam was also troubled by Hunter's ecumenical outreach to an Islamic organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and could no longer separate his politics from his sermons.
Northland's leadership is trying to cope with the loss of membership, which has necessitated some staff cutbacks.
"I am somewhat concerned that people are leaving the church over Joel's involvement," said Tom Starnes, a "shepherding elder" in the congregation and a Hunter ally. "But often they don't have an understanding of the role Joel has played and the actions he has taken."
Some congregation members objected to Michelle Obama's visit, in part because it came in an election year, and because the first lady is a supporter of abortion rights.
Starnes says that a majority of Northland members agree with him that there is value in Hunter's activism, and support his position on climate change and immigration reform.
And he gets support from others, such as Cizik, who believes change is impossible without a degree of risk taking.
"It's obvious that without leaders who have guts, and will pay the price of leadership, the evangelical movement will remain as stuck in the past today, as evangelicals were stuck in the racist past of the days of Bull Connor and Jim Crow generally."
Cizik, who in the 1980s wrote a book called "The High Cost of Indifference," said the price he paid for losing his job was high, but he added, "the real price is being paid by the evangelical establishment that has lost its authority due to indifference and fear."


text:
Ladies and gentlemen, the day has come: it's time for a new list of unreliable CarMax cars. You know what this means: I'm excited. You're excited. And CarMax is probably going to raise the warranty prices on each of these by 50 percent the moment they see this list.
For those of you who don't know what the hell I'm talking about, allow me to explain: about two years ago, I purchased a used 2006 Range Rover – a vehicle with roughly the same durability as disposable contact lenses – from nationwide used car retailer CarMax. While I was buying it, I discovered that CarMax offers a long, bumper-to-bumper warranty on any car in its inventory. So I responded in the way any normal person would: I stood up and did a celebratory jig right there in the showroom.
The result has been exactly as you'd expect: although I'm only two years and two months into my warranty, CarMax has already paid out $6,149.03 in claims – or roughly 57 percent more than the warranty cost to buy. And now you, too, can join in the fun with your own CarMax warranty, which I highly recommend on the following exciting and unusual unreliable used cars.
2009 Audi R8 – $88,000
Yes, ladies and gentlemen, CarMax has an R8. This is no secret. I say this because this car seems to be in very high demand, having been transferred three times to three separate stores: first Los Angeles, then to Las Vegas, and now to Colorado. In fact, it seems to be inching closer to me, which only makes it more tempting.
I called on warranty prices for this thing, and I discovered that a bumper-to-bumper plan for five years or up to 125,000 total vehicle miles costs just $4,499. But since you probably won't reach 125,000 miles in five years, consider the 75,000-mile plan: it's just $2,989. The deal of the century.
2011 BMW 1 Series M – $49,000
Somehow, CarMax always seems to have a healthy supply of BMW 1 Series Ms. And while there are always a few commenters who question my characterization of these things as "unreliable," I think we'd all agree that the best way to own a used high-performance BMW of questionable ownership history is with a long, comprehensive warranty issued by an automobile dealership who primarily makes money by selling service plans on Altimas.
2005 Jaguar S-Type R – $15,600
In my long, sad years of staying up late and searching CarMax inventory, I don't think I can recall seeing a vehicle that so desperately needed a warranty like the Jaguar S-Type R. I'm stunned they even offer this car, which is known primarily for two things: 400 horsepower, and constant breakdowns. I know there are better deals out there than this S-Type R. But ladies and gentlemen, I promise you this: when all is said and done, this will end up being the cheapest one you can buy.
2004 Mercedes-Benz CLK55 AMG – $17,000
The CLK55 AMG Coupe is one of my all-time favorite cars. Styling is gorgeous and simple, sizing is perfect, and it uses a naturally-aspirated 362-horsepower 5.4-liter V8 that provides excellent, smooth power at any RPM. The only problem: this is an 11-year-old German car made by the two paragons of unreliability: Mercedes-Benz and AMG. So I highly recommend a warranty, which almost nobody is willing to sell on a car this old – except crazy CarMax, who is offering this gorgeous example for just $17,000.
2008 Mercedes-Benz S65 AMG – $60,000
When I did a list of unreliable CarMax cars four months ago, I proudly featured this S65, calling it the Holy Grail of CarMax. Back then, it was a thousand dollars more expensive, and it was still a great deal – especially since the warranty was only $3,589 for another 59,000 miles, or $5,599 for another 84,000 miles. Although I suspect the bizarre tan color is holding this one back from finding a buyer, it shouldn't be. C'mon, people: you don't want black or silver anywhere near as much as you want a warranty.
2004 Porsche 911 Carrera 4 Cabriolet – $32,000
As every Porsche enthusiast knows, the "996" 911 model – made from 1999 to 2004 – has a severe engine issue with the intermediate shaft, or IMS, that results in catastrophic engine failure without warning. Although such a failure can be expensive, buying this 996 with a CarMax warranty means you don't have to take the risk: just pony up a few grand for MaxCare and drive along without a care in the world. Need a new engine? That'll be a $50 deductible, please.
@DougDeMuro is the author of Plays With Cars. He owned an E63 AMG wagon and once tried to evade police at the Tail of the Dragon using a pontoon boat. (It didn't work.) He worked as a manager for Porsche Cars North America before quitting to become a writer, largely because it meant he no longer had to wear pants. Also, he wrote this entire bio himself in the third person.


text:
Rev 6 requires a core or refundable core charge before your new engine or transmission ships. No core, no problem. We also have cores for those that don't have one. learn more
RZR 900 Platinum Short Block Engine
What you get:
We guarantee your engine will be as good as new. We stand behind our engines with a 2-yr. warranty.
Your complete engine rebuild includes the following:


text:
August 12, 2008
Photo Albums in Google Docs
The first screenshot has been created using information from Google's code, which already includes an icon of the photo section. The other screenshots show an empty list of photo albums and a new image search feature.
I suspect Google Docs will become the place where you can upload, share and manage any kinds of files. It's also likely that all the files that are uploaded to other Google services will be accessible in Google Docs in much the same way as the photos uploaded to Blogger blogs can be found in Picasa Web Albums.
Update: Radu noticed that if you go to docs.google.com/#photos and type the first letters from the titles of your Picasa Web Albums, Google shows the full titles as suggestions. It seems that it only works for public albums.
26 comments:
- AnonymousAugust 12, 2008 at 4:17 AM
This will be cool. But since a very long time google has not updated picasa web albums. Its desktop software also fails to meet today's needs. Just making a link will make sense ? Docs and Photo organizer have some different and unique requirements. How google will address them. I think its really a difficult question to answerReplyDelete
I found another thing:ReplyDelete
Google to launch an PDF Editor:
This is great! I was just thinking yesterday that it would be nice if Google Docs had some kind of repository for uploaded images; occasionally I'll upload an image, but then end up using a different one: unless I record the source of the file and a description of the images, there's really no way reuse images previously uploaded. Even if you haven't deleted it, you'd have to open another doc, find the image source and copy it to the other doc. Photo albums should really improve this part of gDocs!ReplyDelete
- AnonymousAugust 12, 2008 at 4:25 AM
i just oploades some jpg ad its working fineReplyDelete
If you upload an image, it's included in a document.
- AnonymousAugust 12, 2008 at 4:52 AM
Okay, I did the upload by email, two jpg as an attachment and it becomes two seperate documentsReplyDelete
The features mentioned in this post are not yet available, so don't try to upload photos.ReplyDelete
Uploading images is a feature available since the Writely days of Google Docs. The feature was undocumented and the upload rather primitive as an image uploaded would be converted to a document with that image in it.ReplyDelete
There was no way to reuse images uploaded (other than previewing the document with the image and copying the - Google Docs internal - link to the image.
Images would stay indefinitely stored in Google Docs, even after the original document containing them was trashed and removed from trash. The links to the images would however pertain. This would allow abuse of the image upload feature...
Your mention of Gdrive is intriguing. I wonder, does anyone know how much space users are allotted for Google Docs? Gmail has that right up front. I wonder what the limit is for Docs or if there is one. There has to be a limit, right?ReplyDelete
"I suspect Google Docs will become the place where you can upload, share and manage any kinds of files."ReplyDelete
I am skeptical that it will be ANY kind of file. The issues with intellectual property become larger with each step into binary file land (text-based docs are easy to detect plagiarism - they are, after all, Google). Pics, music and video (in that order) seem like ever increasing steps into the IP lawsuit morass and they already have YouTube to cause them trouble for video. If they add music, I wonder if they're ready to (a) be sued by the RIAA, or (b) respond to subpoenas from same so the RIAA can sue Google's users? Just thinking out loud here, but really, I bet it's the IP issues and not any technical problems that have been holding up GDrive, et al., for quite some time now.
Yes there is a limit. Read more here: http://docs.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=37603&topic=8613
What are the implications for Picasa Web Albums? At first glance, it seems like a poor use of resources for Google to fork the same functionality (or at least similar) into two different products. If they're stepping away from Picasa Web Albums, what about all the 3rd-party functionality that's been created (I'm thinking iPhoto Picasa Uploader).ReplyDelete
If you go to http://docs.google.com/#photos, Google Docs adds twoReplyDelete
strange options:
* a blank item in the New menu
* an "undefined" item in advanced search, next to "Type".
The undefined option corresponds to this search:
I am skeptical that it will be ANY kind of file. The issues with intellectual property become larger with each step into binary file land (text-based docs are easy to detect plagiarism - they are, after all, Google).
Here's something interesting. Google Docs uses some IDs for the types of items that can be stored: doc, spread, presentation. The ID for PDFs is DoclistBlob. As you probably know, blob means binary large object, "a collection of binary data stored as a single entity in a database management system. Blobs are typically images, audio or other multimedia objects, though sometimes binary executable code is stored as a blob."
I think PDFs are just a small test for a future option that will allow you to store any filetype.
What are the implications for Picasa Web Albums? At first glance, it seems like a poor use of resources for Google to fork the same functionality (or at least similar) into two different products.
I think Picasa Web Albums will exist as a separate service, but you'll be able to access the photos (maybe even collaborate with other people) from Google Docs.
You very well may be right that Picasa Web Albums will be accessible from Google Docs, but it still doesn't sit well with me that they're considering having two concurrent services with essentially the same purpose. That strikes me as a problem akin to Notebook/Bookmarks confusion.
Alex Du, thanks for the pointer. I had been wondering about that. I wish there was a counter or something. I'm not close to the limit (haven't gone much past 500 yet) but it would be nice to keep track of such a thing.ReplyDelete
My guess is that this limit will rise or disappear altogether as they ramp this thing up.
Thanks for the info.
There is some more additionReplyDelete
A form icon is present in ITEMS by TYPE
when we are refreshing the docs home page
that indicates they are going to put some more additions to Google docs
Google docs rocks
- AnonymousAugust 18, 2008 at 12:09 PM
I believe that if Google maintains access to Photo Albums within Google Docs AND Picasa Web at the same time, this would not be a conflict and there wouldn't be confusion. Think of it this way. When you view the initial Google Docs file viewer, you are merely browsing and searching your documents, spreadsheets, PDFs, etc... When you click on a PDF, it opens in the PDF viewer. When you click on a spreadsheet, it loads the Google Spreadsheets app. When you click on a presentation, it loads the Google Presentations app. So, it's safe to presume that when you click on a photo album, it will load that album in the Picasa Web Albums app.ReplyDelete
Think of the Google Docs file viewer as "Windows Explorer"... and Picasa Web is the application that loads for photos... Google Spreadsheets is the application that loads for spreadsheets... Google Docs (the app, not the file viewer) is the application that loads for documents... Google Presentations is the application that loads for presentations... etc...
I presume that the future might also allow for videos (which won't need a separate app, but will be embedded... but will likely use the Google Videos system for embedding)... and eventually MP3s which might allow for music, but will also likely be used for voicemails (both through Google Talk voicemails and for Grand Central voicemails)...
It would be nice if, eventually, file attachments to emails would automatically show up in some sort of "attachments" folder. Then, you'd be able to search through all of your email attachments using Google Docs and play/view them inline (photos through Picasa Web, spreadsheets through Google Spreadsheets, videos through Google Video, etc...)
Anymore news on this feature???ReplyDelete
It looks like my prediction about Videos in Google Docs is correct. Just as there is a label of "photos" in the code... there is also one for "videos". Of course, it has taken FOREVER for photos to actually arrive (soon I hope?)... hopefully videos will happen at the same time or will quickly follow.ReplyDelete
I'm still holding my breath for Google Drive, though, to tie it all together.
- Jerome F.July 17, 2009 at 2:46 AM
I was going to report that http://docs.google.com/#videos gives a similar result.
They announced today that they're improving the UI and will launch a brand new Docs List - a.k.a Google Web Drive: http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2009/07/pardon-our-dust.html
- AnonymousSeptember 22, 2009 at 3:27 PM
still nothing after a year...ReplyDelete
Now that any file type can be uploaded (new feature) the pictures in my Google documents account open in a native Google docs viewer. Case and point: http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B3qCTeq44YeYMWY3NTgwZjItOWJlMC00MmJlLThjMTEtZjcxNDU5Njg2NDM4&hl=en No thumbnail views are not currently available (from what I can tell) but it does appear to be an alternative to Picasa Web. In my opinion its better than Picasa because your able to create sub-folders. Which is the one feature that has kept me from uploading all my pictures to Picasa Web.ReplyDelete
I also prefered Google Docs because Picasa do not have subfolders and sharing all your albums with one person it very difficult. Anyone knows how to do an automatic slideshow photo viewer with a folder in google docs?ReplyDelete
- AnonymousJuly 13, 2010 at 9:55 AM
coming up on two years since this post...ReplyDelete
#photos still just looks to be a way to search
Hi guys,ReplyDelete
Thank you so much for this wonderful article really!
If someone want to know more about photo albums I think this is the right place for you!