Live Updates: Senate Gun Hearing Features Gabrielle Giffords, NRA

Click here for a a full readout of the gun violence hearing, or look below for key moments:

To open the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on gun legislation, former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords gave a short, impassioned speech imploring Americans and Congress to act on gun violence. She read carefully from a script, a task she undertook very carefully and at times with difficulty.

Below is what Giffords said. She left the room shortly thereafter.

"Thank you for inviting me here today. This is an important conversation for our children , for our communities, for Democrats, and Republicans. Speaking is difficult but I need to say something important: Violence is a big problem too many children are dying. Too many children. We must do something. It will be hard, but the time is now! You must act! Be bold, be courageous, Americans are counting on you. Thank you!" Giffords said.

Watch it here:

Back to top

My courageous wife @ gabbygiffordsabout to give opening statement at gun hearing. twitter.com/ShuttleCDRKell?

- Mark Kelly (@ShuttleCDRKelly) January 30, 2013

This Tweet from the liberal website Thinkprogress purports to show Giffords' handwritten testimony.

Gabby Giffords' handwritten testimony: twitter.com/thinkprogress/?

? ThinkProgress (@thinkprogress) January 30, 2013

Mark Kelly's Opening Statement : "We are Simply Two Reasonalbe Americans Who Have Said: Enough

We aren't here as victims. We're speaking to you today as Americans. We're a lot like many of our fellow citizens following this debate about gun violence:

We're moderates. Gabby was a Republican long before she was a Democrat.

We're both gun owners, and we take that right and the responsibilities that come with it very seriously.

And we watch with horror when the news breaks to yet another tragic shooting. After 20 kids and six of their teachers were gunned down in their classrooms at Sandy Hook Elementary, we said, this time must be different. Something needs to be done.

We are simply two reasonable Americans who have said: Enough.

Kelly's Solution:

First, fix gun background checks. The holes in our laws make a mockery of the background check system. Congress should close the private sales loophole and get dangerous people entered into that system.

Second, remove the limitations on collecting data and conducting scientific research on gun violence.

Enact a tough federal gun trafficking statute. This is really important.

And finally, let's have a careful and civil conversation about the lethality of firearms we permit to be legally bought and sold in this country.

Leahy: 2nd Amendment Isn't At Risk, 'What is at Risk are Lives.'

The longtime Vermont Democrat and Judiciary Committee chairman is reliably liberal on most matters, but he has a more moderate view of gun control. He has spoken of the rifle range on his own Vermont property. In his opening statement, the Democrat was careful to point out Supreme Court cases that enshrine the 2nd amendment.

Now, at the outset of this hearing, I note that the Second Amendment is secure and will remain secure and protected. In two recent cases, the Supreme Court has confirmed that the Second Amendment, like the other aspects of our Bill of Rights, secures a fundamental individual right. Americans have the right to self- defense and, as the court has said, to have guns in their homes to protect their families. No one can take away those rights or their guns. Second Amendment rights are the foundation on which our discussion rests. They're not at risk.

But what is at risk are lives. Lives are at risk when responsible people fail to stand up for laws that will keep guns out of the hands of those who use them to commit murder, especially mass murders. I ask we focus our discussion on additional statutory measures to better protect our children and all Americans. I say this as a parent and as a grandparent.

Ours is a free society, an open society. We come together today to consider how to become a safer and more secure society.

Back to top

Grassley: Obama Gun Argument Turns Constitution 'On Its Head'

Sen. Chuck Grassley, an Iowa Republican, offered his party's opening statement at the hearing. He noted the tragedies of Newtown and Tucson and praised Giffords. But he added: "Although Newtown and Tucson are terrible tragedies, the deaths in Newtown should not be used to put forward every gun control measure that has been floating around for years. The problem is greater than guns alone."

Grassley argued that mental health policy should be included in the discussion and so should an examination of pervasive violence in video games.

He argued that limiting the size of magazines would be inefffective and only hurt people seeking to protect themselves.

"We hear that no one needs to carry larger magazines than those that hunters use to shoot deer," he said. "But an attacking criminal, unlike a deer, shoots back."

But Grassley's most important argument was a refutation of President Obama's recent argument that the 2nd Amendment should not trump the right of Americans to safely assemble and he cited the shootings at churches and schools and shopping malls.Those people, the president said, were deprived of a more basic right to live, liberty and pursuit of happiness. (More: Read about Obama's gun control argument.)

Grassley took extreme issue with that argument, which he suggested perverts the Constitition.

I was taken aback when the President cited the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution as sources of government power to restrict gun ownership rights.

The Constitution creates a limited federal government. It separates powers among the branches of the federal government and it preserves state power against federal power. The Framers believed these structures would adequately control the government so as to protect individual liberty. But the American people disagreed. They feared that the Constitution gave the federal government so much power that it could be tyrannical and violate individual rights. So a Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution. Each of those rights, including the Second Amendment, was adopted to further limit government power and protect individual rights.

President Obama's remarks turned the Constitution on its head. He said, "The right to worship freely and safely, that right was denied to Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin.

"The right to assemble peacefully, that right was denied shoppers in Clackamas, Oregon, and moviegoers in Aurora, Colorado. That most fundamental set of rights to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness - fundamental rights that were denied to college students at Virginia Tech, and high school students at Columbine, and elementary school students in Newtown?"

But this is not so. Except for its prohibition on slavery, the Constitution limits only the actions of government, not individuals.

So, for instance, the right to peacefully assemble protects individual rights to organize to protest or seek to change governmental action.

That right is trivialized and mischaracterized as protecting shopping and watching movies.

Back to top

How the Supreme Court Views Guns - ABC's Supreme Court reporter Ariane de Vogue offers this:

Given Grassley's opening statement: "No wonder millions of Americans fear that the President might take executive action and Congress may enact legislation that could lead to a tyrannical federal government." It's worth mentioning Justice Scalia's words in Heller: (striking down DC's strict handgun ban)

"Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. "

Back to top

Leahy and LaPierre Tangle on Background Checks:' "Please I'm Not Trying to Play Games Here."

Sen. Patrick Leahy asked NRA head Wayne LaPierre about the universal background checks. LaPierre would not take the question head-on, arguing instead that circumstances had changed since the 1990s and he ultimately said the organization does not support them.

LaPierre argued that adding more background checks would be ineffective, because those failing the checks are not prosecuted.

"The fact is the law right now is a failure as it is," LaPierre said.

But Leahy was not happy with the answer and accused LaPierre of evading the question. LaPierre responded heatedly and annoyed saying it might not address the question but he "honestly" believes that is the answer.

"Please I'm not trying to play games here," Leahy said.

The Young Women are Safer With Guns Argument

When Gayle Trotter was advocating on behalf of arming women, even saying that young women say an AR-15 is their weapon of choice, she started to say I stand for millions of women across this country. There were audible hisses and moans from the audience and someone said "No you don't!"

Trotter is a Washington lawyer and a fellow at the Independent Women's Forum.

"Guns make women safer," said Trotter. "Over 90 percent of violent crimes occur without a firearm, which makes guns the great equalizer for women. The vast majority of violent criminals use their size and their physical strength to prey on women who are at a severe disadvantage. In a violent confrontation, guns reverse the balance of power. An armed woman does not need superior strength or the proximity of a hand-to-hand struggle. "

She later said the AR-15, an assault rifle, is the type of gun women should get.

Her argument was disputed by Baltimore County Police Chief James Johnson, who said a gun in the house can turn otherwise harmful violence deadly.

Watch Gayle Trotter's testimony here:

The Everyone is Safer With Guns Argument

David Kopel, an analyst at the Cato institute, gave numbers-laced testimony in favor of introducing more guns and against universal background checks.

"Mandating universal checks can only be enforceable if there is universal gun registration, and we know that universal gun registration in every country in the world where it's existed has been a serious peril to gun ownership," he said.

"If we want to save lives right now, not with constructive reforms that might do some good in the future, there is only one thing that will stop the next copycat killer, and that is lawful armed self- defense in the schools, not only by armed guards but also by teachers. Utah provides the successful model," said Kopel. "There, a teacher who has a permit to carry - after a background check and a safety training class - everywhere else in the state is not prohibited from carrying at the schools. "

Feinstein Welcomes Assault Weapons Ban Nemisis -

The top national spokesman for a new Assault Weapons Ban is California Democrat and Sen. Feinstein, who wrote the '94 version. There was a moment of levity when Feinstein welcomed the witnesses to the hearing? "Even Mr. LaPierre, it's good to see you?we tangled maybe 18 years ago?you were pretty good."

He smiled back at her. Leahy gave Feinstein back a few seconds of time to make up for the laughter in the hearing room.

Hearing Leans Against Gun Control -

ABC's Arlette Saenz notes from the hearing room: The makeup of the panel leans in the anti-gun control position. Wayne LaPierre of the NRA, Professor David Kopel of Denver University and Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women's Forum fall into the anti-gun control camp while Mark Kelly and Baltimore Chief of Police James Johnson favor gun control and specifically are advocating on behalf of strengthening background checks.

Durbin: The Problem is Too Many Guns

Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, an advocate of tougher gun laws, pointed to urban violence in Chicago as a reason for tougher laws. He pointed to the slaying overnight of a 15 year-old Chicago honor student who was killed at a park. He argued the problem is there are too many guns in this country. And he said Chicago has more guns than just about anywhere. But Durbin argued the guns in Chicago are coming from places like Mississippi, where the laws are looser. He also asked Wayne LaPierre about the fear of some gun rights activists that fewer guns would mean they would be unable to rise up against the government. LaPierre said that is an argument with historical basis.

Back to top

Kelly on High Capacity Magazines -

A heated argument erupted on high capacity magazines. Dick Durbin argued with Kopel about how many bullets should be allowed in a magazine. Kopel said a hundred round magazine would be silly and not function. But he defended 33 round magazines. Kelly interjected that that if Jared Loughner had had a 10 round magazine he probably would not have been able to shoot Christina Taylor Green, the nine year-old girl he killed. She was killed, Kelly said, with the 13th round. And Loughner dropped his second magazine. Kelly has been clinical and direct in discussing the shooting.

Watch Kelly here:

Graham Says He's Not Unreasonable -

He wants the wrong people to have fewer bullets. And the right people to have more bullets. Graham pointed to the story of an Atlanta woman who was unable to drop an intruder with six bullets. He said she should have had more. But he said it should be the goal to keep bullets out of the hands of the wrong people. And he should not be disparaged for that opinion.

Back to top

How Many Rounds are Constitutional? -

David Kopel, the lawyer and CATO analyst, argued that limiting magazines to 10 rounds would clearly be unconstitutional. He didn't seem so sure about a 19 round clip, say. He was referring to the Supreme Court's Heller decision. The Constitution has evolved, clearly, from a time before there were any magazines whatsoever. It was written when armies carried muskets and fired cannons.

Back to top

Arming Women vs. Women in Combat -

One of the key moments in this hearing came when Gayle Trotter stared down Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, the Rhode Island Democrat, and told him he couldn't understand what it felt like to be an unarmed new mother. She earlier in the hearing suggested women carry AR-15 rifles. But while Trotter supports arming more women, her group, the Independent Women's forum, does not support women in combat, another subject in the news. Why? In part, Trotter argued "chivalry will be dead."

ABC's Arlette Saenz points this posting from a different IWF staff-member, Charlotte Hays, on their website:

I would also like to add that I think women in combat will be harmful to men. What kind of man doesn't rescue a woman in distress? Our military took risks to rescue Jessica Lynch when she was captured in Iraq in 2003 that it might not take for a man. If we are to put women in the front lines, men will be forced to learn to act more like the men on the Costa Concordia than the Titanic. Chivalry will be dead, and, unfortunately a lot of women will be harmed in a more directly physical manner.

Kelly on Armed School Guards - Mark Kelly draws on his experience as a pilot being shot at and says the chaos of a firefight is an argument armed guards as a panacea.

LaPierre's World View -

NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre several times pointed to the fact that the powerful - members of Congress and titans off industry - have armed guards. They have security, he argued, but the normal American does not and so they need to be able to protect themselves. And that seems to be part of the essence of this argument. There are people who think the government should work to protect its citizens from people with guns. And there are those who think people should be empowered to protect themselves. It is a matter of divided perspective in this country.

Also Read

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/live-updates-senate-gun-hearing-features-gabrielle-giffords-154608102--abc-news-politics.html

Canelo Alvarez Chavez vs Martinez Yunel Escobar Irish Daily Star seth macfarlane Black Mesa matt ryan

Prehistoric humans not wiped out by comet, says researchers

Jan. 30, 2013 ? Comet explosions did not end the prehistoric human culture, known as Clovis, in North America 13,000 years ago, according to research published in the journal Geophysical Monograph Series.

Researchers from Royal Holloway university, together with Sandia National Laboratories and 13 other universities across the United States and Europe, have found evidence which rebuts the belief that a large impact or airburst caused a significant and abrupt change to Earth's climate and terminated the Clovis culture. They argue that other explanations must be found for the apparent disappearance.

Clovis is the name archaeologists have given to the earliest well-established human culture in the North American continent. It is named after the town in New Mexico, where distinct stone tools were found in the 1920s and 1930s.

Researchers argue that no appropriately sized impact craters from that time period have been discovered, and no shocked material or any other features of impact have been found in sediments. They also found that samples presented in support of the impact hypothesis were contaminated with modern material and that no physics model can support the theory.

"The theory has reached zombie status," said Professor Andrew Scott from the Department of Earth Sciences at Royal Holloway. "Whenever we are able to show flaws and think it is dead, it reappears with new, equally unsatisfactory, arguments.

"Hopefully new versions of the theory will be more carefully examined before they are published," he concluded.

Share this story on Facebook, Twitter, and Google:

Other social bookmarking and sharing tools:

---

Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of Royal Holloway London.

Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

---

Note: If no author is given, the source is cited instead.

Disclaimer: Views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of ScienceDaily or its staff.

Source: http://feeds.sciencedaily.com/~r/sciencedaily/top_news/top_science/~3/tT4q5zAnQvE/130130082447.htm

andy pettitte tyler clementi kevin kolb sarah shahi george clooney rutgers dharun ravi

Office Ergonomics - crystalfrankser - LiveJournal - Lesley Alin's blog

Office Ergonomics | Learn the Secrets of Good Health & Fitness ...

Sorry, Readability was unable to parse this page for content.

Source: http://binitasharma95.blogspot.com/2013/01/office-ergonomics-learn-secrets-of-good.html

nba trade deadline ncaa tournament marchmadness mike d antoni nba trade rumors 2012 ncaa tournament schedule laurent robinson

Posted by lteydanie at 11:15 PM Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to Facebook

Source: http://lteydanie.blogspot.com/2013/01/office-ergonomics-learn-secrets-of-good.html

tracy morgan Chase.com Talk Like a Pirate Day raiders Demi Lovato iOS 6 Features big brother

Source: http://bounteousness-capitation.blogspot.com/2013/01/lteydanie-office-ergonomics-learn.html

monday night football SEC Championship Game 2012 kansas city chiefs Javon Belcher express kindle fire Jenny Johnson

Source: http://crystalfrankser.livejournal.com/344179.html

msft etan patz obama dog doug hutchison larry brown thomas kinkade pat summit

Source: http://lesleyalin.typepad.com/blog/2013/01/office-ergonomics-crystalfrankser-livejournal.html

Foo Canoodle Isaac path Tropical Storm Isaac path Hurricane Katrina Hurricane Isaac Path Isaac Hurricane

War Games | Grant Williams | FINANCIAL SENSE

?We live in a global economy, so you yourself cannot do something alone. You have to cooperate with your partners.?
? Kim Choong-soo, Governor of the Bank of Korea

?David Lightman: What is the primary goal?
Joshua: To win the game.?
? Dialogue, War Games

?I generally don?t know how far things go, but I can see which way they are going.?
? George Soros

?The fact is, currency wars are fought globally in all major financial centers at once, twenty-four hours per day, by bankers, traders, politicians and automated systems ? and the fate of economies and their affected citizens hang in the balance?
? Jim Rickards, Currency Wars

One, two, three, four, I declare a thumb war!?

I was late to the sport of Thumb Wrestling, having spent my childhood playing such games as British Bulldog (sadly, a game deemed too violent for today?s less hardy progeny); but my children, prevented from engaging in any kind of physical contact on the school playground for fear of potentially life-ending knee-scrapes (or, more likely, school-ending legal action) were ardent thumb wrestlers; and I found myself engaged in what to me were rather pointless exercises during which new rules were arbitrarily added to the game, which seemed designed solely to ensure that Dad never won. (I am still not 100% certain what the rules are surrounding the ?sneak round-the-back-attack?, but that strategy did result in my losing handily to my daughter, Bront?, whenever combat ensued). No matter. Whenever the rhyming gauntlet was thrown down, it was on like Donkey Kong ? though the need to explain that particular reference to Bront? meant that I tended to enter the battle feeling rather old and decidedly unfit for combat. My run of defeats was truly epic.

Nobody ever really wins at Thumb Wars, which makes the whole thing rather pointless; and, as it turns out, the same can be said about the subject of today?s discussion ? Currency Wars ? which seem to be erupting across the globe; and, as they gain in intensity, these monetary conflicts are threatening to throw a major spanner in the works of a world that, until recently, seemed to have been operating under the assumption that it was possible for multiple countries to all devalue their currencies simultaneously in order to inflate their massive debts away.

Poor, misguided fools.

There are many parts of the current financial equation that puzzle me, from investors who are happy to accept guaranteed losses in their government-bond portfolios to governments that genuinely seem to think that increasing their spending by a tiny bit less than they had intended counts as a 'spending cut'; from yield-starved souls who feel that the appropriate return for dipping one?s toe into the junk bond market is sub-6% to business owners who, in a world sloshing in trillions of freshly printed funny money, are forced to pay double-digit interest rates for access to some of the magical bounty.

But beneath it all, at the wellspring of all the disconnects and false price signals that are making investing in today?s supposedly free markets an impossible task, lies the source of my greatest consternation: central banks.

I have one simple question for those august institutions, and it is this:

Do they really think it is possible for them all to devalue their currencies against each other simultaneously and achieve anything but rampant and universal inflation at some future point in time?

Thus far, the focus on a currency war has been rather diffuse and confined to the fringes of intelligent discussion. The first shot across the bow came way back in 2010 when Guido Mantega, Brazil's finance minister, stepped up to a microphone in S?o Paulo and broke the central bank omerta:

'We?re in the midst of an international currency war, a general weakening of currency. This threatens us because it takes away our competitiveness,' were Mantega's exact words. Simple. Accurate. Ominous. The FT takes up the story:

(FT): Mr Mantega?s comments in S?o Paulo on Monday follow a series of recent interventions by central banks, in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan in an effort to make their currencies cheaper. China, an export powerhouse, has continued to suppress the value of the renminbi, in spite of pressure from the US to allow it to rise, while officials from countries ranging from Singapore to Colombia have issued warnings over the strength of their currencies....

By publicly asserting the existence of a ?currency war?, Mr Mantega has admitted what many policymakers have been saying in private: a rising number of countries see a weaker exchange rate as a way to lift their economies.

The politics of such an issue were immediately apparent:

The proliferation of countries trying to manage their exchange rates down is also making it difficult to co-ordinate the issue in global economic forums.

South Korea, the host of the upcoming G20 meeting in November, is reluctant to highlight the issue on the gathering?s agenda, also partly out of fear of offending China, its neighbour and main trading partner.

That was then, and at the time most 'policymakers' (unsurprisingly) as well as most journalists, or 'commentators' (as they are often called in such matters), opined that the term currency war overstated the extent of the hostilities. Any chance of such a conflict was ... 'contained'. You know, like that 'little subprime problem'.

The tools available for competitive devaluation begin with good old-fashioned jawboning. After all, why waste valuable reserves when markets can be scared or cajoled into a suitable reaction by a few choice words from a central banker armed with the necessary gravitas. Ain't that right, Mario?

Next up is the euphemistic process of 'intervention' in currency markets. This is, of course, aimed purely at manipulation 'stabilization'. From there, we move on to a mish-mash of interest-rate policies, capital controls, and something quite innocuously called 'quantitative easing', aka 'money printing', about which we have all heard quite a lot in recent times.

(Rant on: Incidentally, I have had enough of the whole business of trying to continually soften or find new and less-offensive phrases for just about everything that has invaded every corner of modern life. The final straw came this week when I discovered that the humble tracksuit worn by soccer players when warming up before a match is now called an 'anthem jacket'. Why? Because they happen to be wearing it as the national anthem is played. IT'S A TRACKSUIT. Please. Somebody. Make it stop. Rant off.)

Anyway, back to Currency Wars.

The 16-year period between 1995 and 2010 saw a huge shift in the world's currency reserves from West to East (a theme we will certainly return to this year), as can be seen from the chart below. During that period, emerging economies took advantage of shifting trade patterns to accumulate enormous foreign reserves, largely at the expense of their Western customers; but this explosion in their holdings can be traced back to the Fed's ridiculous 'lower for longer' approach to interest-rate policy, which persisted from the mid-1990s to ... well, I'll get back to you when I can fill in the back-end number, but suffice to say, it won't be any time soon.

Source: IMF/TTMYGH

Where did that explosion in reserves come from? Well, some of it came from good old-fashioned growth (remember that?). The vast majority rest? Well, that would be debt ? you know, 'debt', the remedy currently being prescribed to fix the problem of too much debt? Yeah, that.

By the time July of 2011 rolled round, despite a period of relative calm, Mantega was still banging the currency war drum as he watched the Brazilian real continue to strengthen against Bernanke and Geithner's much-desired 'strong' dollar:

Source: Bloomberg

(FT): Brazil is preparing a range of additional measures to stem the damaging rise of the real as the global currency war shows no signs of ending, according to Guido Mantega, the country?s finance minister...

Mr Mantega said the Group of 20 leading economies was still a long way from achieving its goal of agreeing new guidelines for managing currencies, there were 'struggles between countries' such as the US and China, and the global currency war was 'absolutely not over'.

'Absolutely not over'. No, it wasn't. In fact, it was just getting started.

The problems for emerging markets facing concerted efforts by slowing, debt-laden economies to weaken their currencies are well-known.

Slow growth and low interest rates in advanced economies continued to put upward pressure on Brazil?s currency, Mr Mantega said, forcing the authorities to consider further intervention in currency and derivatives markets to limit overshooting.

'We always have new measures to take,' he told the FT, indicating on the sidelines of an investor conference that these would not be pre-announced, but would include market intervention.

The relative strength of their currencies is a big issue for fast-growing economies. Too strong and, though the domestic market will struggle to overheat, competitiveness is impaired. Too weak and the reverse is true, but inflation becomes a serious issue. The answer, of course, is what used to be referred to as the 'Goldilocks' outcome. This term was quite popular until the subprime crisis made fools of everyone who predicted it as the likely endgame to the clear and present dangers facing the US economy. I would, in fact, venture to suggest that the disappearance of that particular term from the punditocracy's lexicon is perhaps the one good thing to have come out of the events of 2007-8.

But, as always, I digress.

It used to be that a government would decrease the value of its currency by literally devaluing it ? reducing its intrinsic value by lowering the amount of gold (or silver) from which coins were minted; but that was in a time devoid of fiat currencies and when there was extremely limited international trade, so exchange rates were of little or no importance. It was a time of hard money and gold standards.

The first great currency war occurred, coincidentally of course, during the Great Depression, when most countries abandoned the gold standard; and Britain, France, and the USA set off on a competitive devaluation process driven by sky-high unemployment (you'll stop me if any of this stuff sounds familiar, right?). As countries devalued against each other in the attempt to reinvigorate their export economies at the expense of their trading partners, nothing was really achieved (except that countless trading companies were bankrupted by wildly gyrating short-term exchange rates). This period in history is beautifully chronicled in Liaquat Ahamed's Lords of Finance (see left), a staggeringly good book from which I have often quoted in these pages. If you haven't read it, read it!

The Bretton Woods era, which ran from the end of WWII until August 15, 1971 (roughly) meant that, with gold anchoring a group of semi-fixed exchange rates, competitive devaluation was more or less negated; and, though the Plaza Accord, signed in 1985, brought about a major devaluation of the US dollar against the yen and Deutsche Mark, it necessitated the Louvre Accord two years later to halt the dollar's slide (you just gotta LOVE these bankers).

The Asian currency crisis of 1997 contained the seeds of an East vs. West currency conflict, but catastrophe was averted, despite the damage that was done to the US deficit and the seeds that were sown for a decade-long war of words between the US and China ? all of which brings us right back to today and the currency war that is just getting going.

Whenever such things are talked about, it is invariably in the context of the US dollar; but the trade war I want to take a look at specifically is the one brewing in my part of the world, between two powerhouses who bear considerable enmity towards one another. No, not China and Japan (that has the makings of a war of an altogether different kind), but Korea and Japan.

The rather unfortunate-looking vehicle (left) is the Sibal ? the first car ever produced in South Korea. It was developed by the Choi brothers in 1955 and was based (as you can clearly see) on the chassis of the Willy's Jeeps left behind by departing US troops ? only about 50% of its parts were locally produced.

This put the Korean automobile industry about 40 years behind that of Japan, whose storied zaibatsu (conglomerates) began building in the 1910s the cars that would eventually come to dominate the world.

The other area where Japan had it over Korea was consumer electronics.

Back in the 1980s and into the 1990s, companies such as Sony, Pioneer, Hitachi, and Sharp were producing consumer electronics widely recognized as the best in the world; and alongside the likes of Toyota, Nissan, and Honda they helped Japan Inc. stand astride the world.

Back then, Korean cars and consumer electronics were, frankly, a bit of a joke.

Nobody who could afford not to would buy a Daewoo or a Hyundai car. Nobody wanted an LG television. In fact, in 1981 Samsung Electric (the forerunner to Samsung Electronics) proudly boasted that it had manufactured its 10 millionth black & white TV.

Fast forward to 2012, and the change in the landscape has been nothing short of seismic.

Sharp sits on the verge of bankruptcy, once-mighty Sony has seen its share price plummet and is now the subject of speculation as to who may buy it and Hitachi is known more for computer disk drives than consumer electronics. Meanwhile, Samsung Electronics is the only company in the world giving Apple a run for its money.

Samsung surpassed Sony in 2005 to become the world's 20th-largest brand, and by 2012 it had not only become the world's largest-selling mobile phone company (some feat in today's Apple-dominated world) but had spent a brief period in 2007 as the world's largest technology company, when it leapfrogged the then-incumbent, Hewlett-Packard.

How did all this come about? Simple:

Source: Bloomberg

As the yen strengthened due to its anchor role in the carry trade, the won weakened substantially, making Korean products far cheaper than those of their Japanese counterparts. Simultaneously, the quality of Korean cars and consumer electronics was improving dramatically, enabling Korean consumer electronics to sweep past those of Japan and their car industry to reach heights never dreamed of when the Choi brothers cobbled together the Sibal, as a look at the best-selling cars of 2012 demonstrates:

?1. Toyota Corolla (Japan)

?2. Hyundai Elantra (Korea)

?5. Kia Rio (Korea)

?8. Toyota Camry (Japan)

Having been gifted a huge headstart by Japan, South Korea is not about to allow the Japanese to claw that advantage back by standing still and letting them weaken the yen, as was made apparent by comments from South Korea's finance minister, Kim Choong-soo, in Davos this past week:

(CNBC): Basically, the level of foreign exchange has to be determined by market fundamentals in the medium to long-run. But in the short run, we all know that there are times where noises can matter, disturbances can take effect. But that's only for the short-term period," Kim told CNBC on the sidelines of the WEF in Davos.

"We all know the grave consequences of competitive devaluation efforts, which we experienced some decades ago. So I think it's time to sit together to talk about that. We live in a global economy, so you yourself cannot do something alone," Kim said. "You have to cooperate with your partners."...

Asked whether South Korea would be forced to respond to the Bank of Japan by managing the won in a more meaningful way for the country's manufacturers, Kim said: "It all depends upon how markets respond to such moves, and the markets have changed over time? our central bank will do whatever it's supposed to do to protect the high volatilities in the financial sector."

"And I'm particularly concerned about the volatilities. If changes are made too rapidly, we all know that will create uncertainties, and we have to do something to prevent that from happening," Kim added.

Source: Bloomberg

Japan's currency has been strengthening for two decades, while its competitors have been happy to sit back and let the weakening effects of that move on their own currencies continue. Now Japan has decided it needs a weaker yen, and though the move has thus far been fairly powerful, we have reached the point where the likes of Korea will step in and defend the advantage they have gained over the last twenty years. As can clearly be seen from the graph (previous page), Korea's KOSPI Index has decoupled from the Nikkei as the yen slide has picked up speed, and that is a phenomenon South Korea simply cannot allow to continue.

This is how it starts with Currency Wars.

When it comes to ammunition reserves, Japan's balance sheet dwarfs that of Korea, with almost four times the amount of foreign currency at their disposal; but they will be fighting this currency war on multiple fronts, and those reserves can quickly become exhausted.

Source: IMF

Printing money or devaluing your currency in a vacuum is one thing. Generally, you can make a difference up to the point where those against whom you are attempting to weaken push back (ask the Swiss National Bank); but once it becomes a competitive sport, all bets are off.

This past week, Japan announced that, as of January 2014, it will begin an open-ended, unlimited QE program to monetize Japanese debt (they are currently buying 36 trillion yen a month, or about $410 billion) and attempt to generate the magical 2% inflation that will decimate its bond market solve all its problems. Sadly, this does no more than allow Japan to catch up with other central bankers around the world who are already monetizing like crazy; but, purely on the basis that something is better than nothing, this change in policy has been cheered to the echo.

As we head into 2013, we find ourselves in a situation unlike any that has ever occurred in the history of global finance. The ability to simplify the complexity of that situation is something only the very brightest amongst us are able to do, and one such man is Raoul Pal of the Global Macro Investor (with whom I have recently been fortunate enough to have a fascinating dialogue). Raoul put together a very simple list which, at the time he compiled it in late December, beautifully highlighted the utter absurdity of today's central banking folly.

The list was split into sections that grouped the 38 countries that had negative or zero real rates (yes: THIRTY. EIGHT.), as well as the countries that either had explicit QE programs in place or were actively intervening in or verbally manipulating their currencies:

Source: Raoul Pal, Global Macro Investor

Now, does it seem remotely possible that all these countries can have weak currencies at the same time? Of course it isn't possible. Not without rampant inflation, it isn't. But that doesn't appear to be a problem for the central bankers of the modern world, who are confident that inflation is 'contained'. Yes, 'contained'. Is anyone paying attention, I wonder?

The competitive devaluation merry-go-round will continue, because these buffoons have left themselves no other options. A currency war will break out in earnest; because none of them will be able to generate the weaker currency they need, and that will in turn lead to several exits from the EU, because the weaker economies will need to regain control of their own currencies and not be beholden to Brussels. This is the way things go, I am afraid.

"One, two, three, four, I declare a currency war!"

There is one other important piece of Currency Wars that I want to take a look at before we wrap things up for the day, and it stems from a rather interesting recent announcement from the Bundesbank.

Last October, the Bundesbank was challenged by auditors to explain why they kept the majority of their gold overseas. They explained it rather neatly:

(ZeroHedge): The reasons for storing gold reserves with foreign partner central banks are historical... To be more specific: in October 1951 the Bank deutscher L?nder, the Bundesbank?s predecessor, purchased its first gold for DM 2.5 million; that was 529 kilograms at the time. By 1956, the gold reserves had risen to DM 6.2 billion, or 1,328 tonnes; upon its foundation in 1957, the Bundesbank took over these reserves. No further gold was added until the 1970s. During that entire period, we had nothing but the best of experiences with our partners in New York, London and Paris. There was never any doubt about the security of Germany?s gold. In future, we wish to continue to keep gold at international gold trading centres so that, when push comes to shove, we can have it available as a reserve asset as soon as possible. Gold stored in your home safe is not immediately available as collateral in case you need foreign currency. Take, for instance, the key role that the US dollar plays as a reserve currency in the global financial system. The gold held with the New York Fed can, in a crisis, be pledged with the Federal Reserve Bank as collateral against US dollar-denominated liquidity. Similar pound sterling liquidity could be obtained by pledging the gold that is held with the Bank of England.

So there you have it. The Bundesbank was extremely happy with holding its gold in New York (amongst other places) and saw no need to move it.

A couple of weeks later, the story surfaced again when Andreas Dobret of the Bundesbank gave a speech in front of the NY Fed's Bill Dudley:

(Zerohedge): Please let me also comment on the bizarre public discussion we are currently facing in Germany on the safety of our gold deposits outside Germany ? a discussion which is driven by irrational fears.

In this context, I wish to warn against voluntarily adding fuel to the general sense of uncertainty among the German public in times like these by conducting a ?phantom debate? on the safety of our gold reserves.

The arguments raised are not really convincing. And I am glad that this is common sense for most Germans. Following the statement by the President of the Federal Court of Auditors in Germany, the discussion is now likely to come to an end ? and it should do so before it causes harm to the excellent relationship between the Bundesbank and the US Fed.

Throughout these sixty years, we have never encountered the slightest problem, let alone had any doubts concerning the credibility of the Fed [ZH may, and likely will, soon provide a few historical facts which will cast some serious doubts on this claim. Very serious doubts]. And for this, Bill, I would like to thank you personally. I am also grateful for your uncomplicated cooperation in so many matters. The Bundesbank will remain the Fed?s trusted partner in future, and we will continue to take advantage of the Fed?s services by storing some of our currency reserves as gold in New York.

Pretty clear, it has to be said. No chance the Bundesbank would be repatriating their gold any time soon. Except...

On January 16, 2013, just a matter of weeks after their earlier assertions, the Bundesbank released the following statement:

By 2020, the Bundesbank intends to store half of Germany?s gold reserves in its own vaults in Germany. The other half will remain in storage at its partner central banks in New York and London. With this new storage plan, the Bundesbank is focusing on the two primary functions of the gold reserves: to build trust and confidence domestically, and the ability to exchange gold for foreign currencies at gold trading centres abroad within a short space of time.

The following table shows the current and the envisaged future allocation of Germany?s gold reserves across the various storage locations:

To this end, the Bundesbank is planning a phased relocation of 300 tonnes of gold from New York to Frankfurt as well as an additional 374 tonnes from Paris to Frankfurt by 2020.

The withdrawal of the reserves from the storage location in Paris reflects the change in the framework conditions since the introduction of the euro.

Given that France, like Germany, also has the euro as its national currency, the Bundesbank is no longer dependent on Paris as a financial centre in which to exchange gold for an international reserve currency should the need arise. As capacity has now become available in the Bundesbank?s own vaults in Germany, the gold stocks can now be relocated from Paris to Frankfurt.

Of course, no sooner had this story hit the wires than all hell let loose as the conspiracy theorists went on the rampage. Rumours swirled around of missing gold, rehypothecation, and massive price spikes as the Fed scrambled to get delivery of Bundesbank gold long ago leased into the market; but finding out the truth about the situation will likely take considerable time.

The important point about the Bundesbank move is that it heightens another form of currency war ? one that involves the only REAL currency, gold ? that began in August of 2011.

As I wrote back then, when Hugo Chavez demanded his 99 tons of gold from the Bank of England:

(TTMYGH August 26, 2011): Chavez?s move this week could set in motion a chain of events whereby Central banks who store the bulk of their gold overseas in ?safe? locations scramble to repossess their country?s true ?wealth?. If that happens, the most high-stakes game of musical chairs the world has ever seen will have begun.

One would imagine that a country?s gold would be stored onshore in their own vaults rather than be entrusted to a foreign power ? after all, if tensions WERE to rise between the two sovereigns, amongst the first casualties would be said gold.

Based on the paper prepared for the Venezuelan Finance Ministry and Central Bank (table, page 3), Chavez is about to ask a group of Western banks to hand over some $11.1 billion in gold bullion and, despite the obvious logistical nightmare that the transportation of this bullion presents, he will be expecting it to be delivered either to the Venezuelan Central Bank vault, or that of a ?friendly? nation such as China or Russia. Soon.

For the longest time, conspiracy theories about the amount of gold actually held in the various depositories have abounded ? in fact, we have discussed many of them in these pages over the past couple of years ? but now we may finally find out just what does lie beneath, as Venezuela?s grab for their gold could potentially start a landslide of demands for delivery that could unravel a web of deceit years in the making.

Or it may not. Either way, we MIGHT just find out who was right and who was wrong and be able to put the matter to rest once and for all. To quote Vizzini, it would be ?inconceivable? to think for a second that central bank governors the world over are blissfully unaware of the rumours about empty vaults, massive leasing programs, and fictitious allocations held on their behalf at places like Fort Knox, the Federal Reserve, and the Bank of England; so one can reasonably imagine that quite a few of them are sitting uneasily in their chairs waiting to see what the response is to the Venezuelan demands.

Personally, if I were a central bank governor, I know I would want to be absolutely certain that my gold was (a) exactly where it was supposed to be, (b) held in the amount advertised and (c) ... well ... made of gold, ideally ? as opposed to tungsten.

If there is ANY delay in repatriating Venezuela?s gold, it could potentially start a frantic scramble by central banks to claim their physical gold; and if that happens you can be assured that a fire will be lit under the gold price, the likes of which we haven?t yet seen ? even as gold has appreciated from $250 to $1850 over the past 11 years.

As it turned out, of course, there was no delay in repatriating Chavez's gold (which is good), but for Germany to pull the same move takes the game to a whole new level, based on the size of their holdings. They estimate that (for unexplained reasons) it will take them 7 years to repatriate the 8% of their gold that they intend moving from the Fed, so answers on that matter will be a long time in coming ? unless of course, other central banks decide that Currency Wars is a game they need to get good at.

Earlier in this piece, the chart of currency reserves demonstrated just how swiftly developing markets have been accumulating fiat currency in the last 15 years. A look at what those same central banks have been doing with their gold is highly instructive (not to mention very familiar).

Yes, emerging-country central banks are accumulating gold just as fast as they possibly can, as insurance against problems in the world of fiat currency; and those problems are liable to get bigger with each crank of the printing press.

It was Chavez's announcement that sent gold spiking to $1,900 back in September of 2011. Further announcements of similar actions in the wake of Germany's momentous decision may well have a similar effect.

But as I close this week I will leave the final word, appropriately enough, to the man whose book Currency Wars: The Makings of the Next Global Crisis is an absolute must-read on the subject ? Jim Rickards:

(Yahoo): Germany made even bigger splash than Japan in the gold market recently with its surprise announcement last week that the Bundesbank would begin repatriating gold reserves held overseas. The central bank said it wanted to keep more than 50% of its gold reserves at home, up from slightly less than one-third currently. With that in mind, the Bundesbank will move all its gold reserves now held in Paris back to Germany, and reduce its reserves held in New York City.

?Germany is saying that gold is money,? says Jim Rickards... Otherwise... they would just leave the gold where it currently is stored.

And Germany isn?t alone. There?s talk that the Netherlands and Azerbaijan will also repatriate gold reserves.

China, the second largest global economy but the sixth largest holder of gold, according to the World Gold Council, is increasing its gold reserves, Rickards tells The Daily Ticker.

?If the Chinese repeat their pattern, I expect late this year or early 2014 the Chinese will announce, ?We?ve got 3,000 tons or maybe 4,000 tons.? That will be a shock because suddenly the world will wake up and say why is China buying all this gold?" says Rickards.

He says the reason is obvious: ?Gold is the real base money.?

?In dollar terms gold hasn?t gone up that much lately, but in yen terms ? with the devaluation of the yen, gold is partly a function of the currency wars,? he says.

Yes Jim, gold is very much a part of Currency Wars, and the competition is just getting started.

*******

Before I run you through what you will find in this week's Things That Make You Go Hmmm..., a quick piece of housekeeping:

I will once again be speaking at the Cambridge House California Resource Investment Conference in Indian Wells, CA, on February 23/24th; and the line-up this year is fantastic.

Rick Rule, Greg Weldon, Frank Holmes, and Peter Schiff will all be in attendance, along with my great friends Al Korelin and John Mauldin; so if you are in the vicinity and would like to drop by and hear from any of these fine speakers, you can find all the details at the conference's website HERE

I hope to see some of you there.

Continue Reading

Source: http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/grant-williams/war-games

northern lights sign of the times keystone pipeline purim acc tournament big ten tournament big east tournament 2012

Simple Is Banking 2.0, and We've Got Priority Access

Simple offers an online alternative to traditional banking, with a goal of providing features you care about and excellent customer support. Here's a look at what they have to offer and how you can get faster access to their invite-only service.

I switched to Simple a few months ago and it has made managing my finances far easier than Bank of America. I don't have to worry about fees, I always know how much money I have, I'm alerted about any changes instantly, and the customer support team always offers quick answers to any problems that come up. While online banking isn't for everyone, I've really enjoyed my experience so far. This post details some of the best stuff Simple has to offer and a way to skip to the front the invite queue if you feel like giving it a try.

How Simple Works

Simple is, well, pretty simple to understand. Instead of depositing your hard-earned cash in a physical bank, you use technology to do the job for you. When you sign up, you get a Simple VISA card that you can use to withdraw cash from an ATM or make purchases like you would with any bank debit card. The fun starts when you begin to see instant updates and alerts on your iPhone or Android. For example, when you purchase gas for your car Simple will let you know that the gas station may authorize $75 worth of charges but the final amount will change to the total given to you at the pump. When funds are available, you'll receive notifications, too. You can check up-to-the-minute information about your account on your smartphone, locate one of over 50,000 fee-free ATMs based on your location, scan checks for deposit, and much more. Essentially, Simple is a bank you interact with via your smartphone and computer rather than in person. That may frighten some, but many will find that the benefits are worth the sacrifices.

Because online banking is a little scary for some, Simple requires strong passwords and an extra PIN on your smartphone to block out unwanted access if your mobile is lost or stolen. You can't use Simple without an iDevice or Android smartphone, which provides additional security because your bank account won't work without access. (You can, however, dump your smartphone after the initial setup.) Simple also allows you to block access to your debit card via the site and your smartphone, so if your card is lost (temporarily, anyway) you can just turn it off. (If you need to request a replacement through customer support, however, you won't be able to turn it back on.) Additionally, your money is insured to at least the FDIC limit (currently $250,000) and your personal information is never sold or shared with anyone. Simple wanted to create a banking replacement that provides the services of a Chase or Bank of America while adding new better features and focusing on making the experience ideal for the customer.

The Features

Simple operates more like a tech startup than a bank, because in many ways that's what it is. This offers a number of advantages because it means new features are added regularly. Earlier this month Simple released their long-awaited Android app. Just today, they added several new features including the option to attach photos to purchases (e.g. receipts, general images), the option to spend from your savings goals (which we'll discuss shortly), and the aforementioned ability to block usage of your card for as long or as little as you desire. This fast-paced iteration means your bank gets feature upgrades frequently. Here are a few key features Simple offers that provide a better experience:

• 
  
• Safe to Spend tells you exactly how much money you can spend right now. It factors in any pending transactions as well as savings goals you may have in place (explained below).
• Savings Goals automatically sort your money into categories of your choosing. For example, if you want to save $1,500 for a vacation in March you can set a goal to do that. Simple will automatically move a little money every day into that goal until it's filled up. When you're ready to spend that money, you just switch on the "spend from goal" option on your smartphone. Of course, you don't have to spend the money?you can just use a savings goal to keep your cash out of your "safe to spend" amount.
• A Smart Transaction History knows where you spent your money, what type of transaction it was, and if you added a tip or paid a fee. These transactions are always tagged accordingly (tags you can add to as well), and Simple's web app offers a powerful search tool to locate any transaction based on several factors. Want to know how much you spent on groceries in a given month? You can search for that exact query and even save it for easy access later. If there's anything you want to know about your transaction history, Simple makes the information easy to find.
• 
  
• Photo Check Deposit allows you to deposit checks using your smartphone's camera. Just take a picture of the front and back, input the amount, and wait for the deposit to come through. While you can't make cash deposits with Simple, depositing checks only takes a minute and doesn't require a trip to the bank or an ATM.
• A Fast ATM Locator in Simple's smartphone app will check your current location and quickly show you where you can find a fee-free ATM. Simple uses the Allpoint network, which offers over 50,000 locations in the United States.
• Send Money to Anyone by typing in their name, address, and specifying an amount. Simple will issue a check and mail it for you, free of charge. If you pay the same person often, such as a landlord or service provider, you can add them to your address book or even schedule a recurring monthly payment to save you time and effort.
• Exportable Data gives you the option of quickly saving your transaction history as a CSV or JSON file in two clicks.

This is just a short list of features that Simple provides, but should give you an idea of some of their advantages.

The Support Team

Simple puts a high priority on customer support. Not only is that important because they're an online bank, but because you want to work with kind people you can trust when it comes to your money. If you want to talk to a human, you can just give Simple a call. They also respond to email and messages on Twitter most often in minutes rather than hours. You don't receive just "yes" or "no" answers in most cases, either. If you have a problem and there isn't an outright solution, Simple's support staff will help you find a workaround. This is incredibly important with online banking because a number of transactions aren't as easy (e.g. cash deposits, large withdrawals) but are still possible. If you want to get an idea of how helpful their support team can be before switching, try inundating them with any number of questions. In my experience, they'll answer them enthusiastically, quickly, and with just the right amount of detail.

The Downsides

When it comes to downsides, Simple offers many of the same issues that any online bank would: some transactions that may have been easy with a physical bank require a bit more effort. That said, you're trading that convenience for a number of new online conveniences. You can also retain a local bank account for the sole purpose of making local deposits when necessary.

Simple also isn't accessible to everyone. If you don't own an iPhone, iPod touch, or Android smartphone, you can't use their service. You also have to wait to be invited, though we have a work-around for that below.

For more on the ups and downsides of online banking, and help figuring out if it's worthwhile for you, check out this post.

How to Sign Up and Get Invited ASAP

Simple keeps their system closed and invites groups of people as they are able to accommodate them. That means you have to sign up for an invite and wait until they have room to provide you with an account. Normally that wait can be a little while, but Simple has agreed to give Lifehacker readers if they request an invite anytime this week (until 11:59 PM on Sunday, February 3rd 2013). All you have to do is click the link below to visit the Simple site, scroll down to the bottom of the page, and request an invite like you normally would. They'll know you came from Lifehacker and send you an invite within a few days. If you've already requested an invite from Simple but have yet to receive one, go ahead and make another request by following the aforementioned instructions. Be sure to do it by Sunday, however, as priority access is only available for that long.

Simple

Images by bioraven (Shutterstock) and vso (Shutterstock).

Source: http://feeds.gawker.com/~r/lifehacker/full/~3/7Gd_nQVPx60/simple-is-banking-20-and-weve-got-priority-access

divine mercy cabin in the woods the legend of korra three stooges the three stooges the bee gees woodward

At a glance: 3 months later, Sandy losses mount (Providence Journal)

Share With Friends: | | Politics - Top Stories Stories, News Feeds and News via Feedzilla.

Source: http://news.feedzilla.com/en_us/stories/politics/top-stories/280209773?client_source=feed&format=rss

Geminid meteor shower right to work Clackamas Town Center 12 12 12 Anne Hathaway Wardrobe Malfunction man of steel man of steel

British man gets 6 years in Bali drug trial

BALI, Indonesia (AP) ? An Indonesian court sentenced a Briton to six years in prison Tuesday for his role in a cocaine-smuggling case that led to a death sentence last week against a British grandmother.

Julian Anthony Ponder, 43, was convicted of receiving cocaine from 56-year-old Lindsay June Sandiford, who was found guilty of smuggling $2.5 million worth of the drug in her suitcase onto the resort island of Bali. Sandiford was sentenced Jan. 22 to death by firing squad.

Ponder seemed relieved after hearing the verdict, but declined to talk to the press.

"I think it's light enough," said his lawyer, Ary Sunardi. "We will suggest that he accept the sentence."

Presiding Judge Gunawan Tri Budiono said Ponder was found guilty of possessing narcotics and also fined 1 billion rupiah (US$102,500). Twenty-three grams of cocaine were found in his villa when he was arrested.

Prosecutors had sought seven years for Ponder, who could have received a life term. They had sought 15 years for Sandiford, but the court stunned the defendant and many people in her home country by sentencing her to death.

Sandiford filed an appeal request Monday. London-based human rights group Reprieve says it's suing the British government to attempt to force it to pay for Sandiford's legal representation, arguing that officials have fallen down on their duty to keep her safe from inhuman conditions and ensure she has a fair trial. It says Sandiford spent all of her money on the trial lawyer and cannot afford to pay for the appeal, which involves filing legal documents in Bahasa, the Indonesian language, by Feb. 12.

In a statement, Reprieve's Harriet McCulloch said the costs of providing support for Sandiford would be negligible. She said the Foreign Office "must take immediate action and ensure that she does not lose the chance to appeal her death sentence."

During the trial, Sandiford claimed she was forced to transport the drugs into the country by a gang that was threatening to hurt her children. She was arrested in May when 3.8 kilograms (8.4 pounds) of cocaine were discovered in the lining of her luggage at Bali's airport.

In London, British Foreign Office Minister Hugo Swire told lawmakers last week that the government strongly opposes Sandiford's sentence.

Indonesia, like many Asian countries, is very strict on drug crimes. Most of the more than 40 foreigners on its death row were convicted of drug charges. The country has not executed anyone since 2008, when 10 people were put to death.

Ponder's wife, Rachel Lisa Dougall, was earlier sentenced to one year in the case, while Indian national Nandagopal Akkineni received five years. Another Briton, Paul Beales, was previously jailed for four years.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/british-man-gets-6-years-bali-drug-trial-093323763.html

dingo nba all star weekend malin akerman jeff carter chomp national enquirer kate gosselin

CPSC, Hy Cite Recalls 1.7M Pots and Pans Over Burn and Fire ...

Browse >
Home / / CPSC, Hy Cite Recalls 1.7M Po... January 27, 2013 (AmericanInjuryNews.com - Press Release)

New Source: JusticeNewsFlash.com
01/23/2013 // WPB, FL, USA // Injury Lawyers News // Nicole Howley // (press release)

New York, NY ? Hy Cite Enterprises LLC and the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) have announced a voluntary product recall on January 17, 2013, involving 1.7 million Royal Prestige 9-Ply Thermal Wall Cookware, the CPSC reported.

The cookware was recalled after discovering that it can collapse, crimp or severely deform when exposed to heat, which poses a burn and fire hazard to consumers.

The CPSC reported that this recall involves stainless steel 9-ply ?Thermal Wall? pans sold under the ?Royal Prestige? brand name. The products were sold individually and in sets. The following cookware is included in this recall:

? 1.5 qt. saucepan

? 2 qt. saucepan

? 3 qt. Dutch oven

? 4 qt. Dutch oven

? 6 qt. Dutch oven

? 8 qt. Dutch oven

? 8? skillet

? 10.5? skillet

? 10? paella pan

? 14? paella pan

Consumers are advised to contact Hy Cite for instruction for sending the cookware to the firm for repair. All damaged pots and pans will be replaced.

For more information concerning the product recall, consumers can contact Hy Cite Enterprises at (800) 609-9577 from 8 a.m. to 9 p.m. CT Monday through Thursday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT on Fridays, and 8 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. CT on Saturdays or at www.royalprestige.com or www.hycite.com and go to the Recall Information link.

Legal News Reporter: Nicole Howley-Legal news for product liability lawyers.

Media Information:

Address:
Phone: 561-247-1646
Url: West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer News News Source: JusticeNewsFlash.com - Press Release Distribution

No tag for this post. Online Press Release Personal injury lawyers - AmericanInjuryLawyers.com

Source: http://www.americaninjurynews.com/2013/01/27/CPSC-Hy-Cite-Recalls-17M-Pots-and-Pans-Over-Burn-and-Fire-Hazards_201301277964.html

texas news kim mulkey sarah palin today show dallas tornado video 1940 census instagram for android dallas news

Randy Houser and West Bond over Bedtime Routine

"The biggest thing he's doing right now is hollering 'Dada,'" Houser, 36, tells PEOPLE.

Source: http://feeds.celebritybabies.com/~r/celebrity-babies/~3/DpeCYK8vixM/

penguins the band colton dixon houston weather dwyane wade the night they drove old dixie down levon

Adam Lamberts Gets A Birthday Lap Dance By David Arquette!

Adam Lamberts Gets A Birthday Lap Dance By David Arquette!

Singer Adam Lambert was given a birthday treat he won’t soon forget on Friday, when actor David Arquette stripped down to his skivvies and gave him a lapdance. The former “American Idol” singer will turn 31 on Tuesday and celebrated at the Hollywood club Bootsy Bellows, co-owned by the actor. Adam Lambert went out with ...

Adam Lamberts Gets A Birthday Lap Dance By David Arquette! Stupid Celebrities Gossip Stupid Celebrities Gossip News

Source: http://stupidcelebrities.net/2013/01/adam-lamberts-gets-a-birthday-lap-dance-by-david-arquette/

Robert Bork instagram mark sanchez christina aguilera Mayan End Of The World Olivia Black the voice

XM MLB Chat: Internet TV viewing cutting into broadcast and cable ...

1/26/13, "Watching TV on web is disrupting cable, broadcast worlds," Miami Herald, Glenn Garvin

"When Barnett and 5,000 or so others gather Monday for the National Association of Television Program Executives (NATPE) convention at the Fontainebleau Hotel on Miami Beach, there will be plenty of sweaty foreheads, some acquisitive smiles and ? perhaps most numerous ? blank looks of confusion. Not since cable turned the old three-channel TV universe on its head in the late 1970s has the industry been in such a state of disoriented befuddlement.

New technologies that give viewers more say in what they watch, where they watch and how much they pay for it are great for consumers. But they?re inducing a collective nervous breakdown among industry executives, who have to figure out new ways to make money in a business facing serious threats to its traditional sources of revenue ? advertising and cable-TV subscriptions....

The industry last year was blindsided by everything from a leap in the use of TiVo and other digital video-recording devices that pushed Nielsen ratings down as much as 50 percent to a new device called the Hopper that allows viewers to instantly zap by commercials.

But the biggest tremors came from the Internet, which is threatening to remake television as thoroughly as it already has the newspaper and music industries, by letting viewers bypass cable to watch shows online.

There was explosive growth in what the industry calls over-the-top or OTT, little boxes that sell for as little as $50 or so and allow viewers access to hundreds of streaming-video Internet television channels from their TVs. Apple and Roku, who make the most popular OTT players, have sold about five million apiece. But other companies like Amazon, Google and Western Electric are pushing into the market, and industry analysts say Intel, the world?s largest semi-conductor chip manufacturer, is also poised to leap into the OTT business.

Another major OTT force: video-game consoles like Xbox and PlayStation, which can also be used to watch streaming Internet video. ?They may be doing more business than anybody,? says Andy Tarzon, founding partner of the media research company TDG. ?Xbox is the leading viewer for Netflix content.? It will, soon enough, have its own content; parent company Microsoft late last year hired senior CBS programming executive Nancy Tellem, who helped develop Friends and ER, to direct an on-line TV operation.

??The use of programming services that deliver television program via the Internet is mushrooming, with Netflix, YouTube, Amazon and other big names ? even Walmart ? setting up or expanding operations. ?More than anything, that?s gotten everybody?s attention,? says Terence Gray, a longtime network producer who now runs the New York Television Festival. ?When you see YouTube?s $100 million investment in programming, or what Amazon?s studios did last year, or Microsoft hiring Nancy Tellem, this is no longer a conversation. This is being done.?

Hulu, a website that offers shows from NBC, ABC and Fox, doubled its subscribers last year while increasing its revenue 65 percent. Meanwhile, many of the online services are starting to make their own shows: Hulu debuted 10 of its own programs last year and Netflix has five in production, including House of Cards, a political thriller starring Kevin Spacey that debuts next week.

Attacking cable from a different direction, Aero TV uses tiny but powerful antennas to capture broadcast signals from the air, records them, then reroutes them into a viewer?s computer or OTT player to be watched whenever he wants. Because Aero pays nothing to the broadcasters (a practice being challenged in court) it can offer its service for as little as $8 a month. Last year?s start-up in New York City was so successful that Aero is expanding to 22 more cities ? including Miami ? this year.

Senior television executives caution against any expectation that their industry is about to embark on an instant makeover, and the numbers bear them out. Hulu?s three million subscribers are about one-seventh the number of viewers who watch NCIS each week on CBS, and its $700 million in annual revenues is tip money compared the $3.4 billion CBS generated in a single fiscal quarter last year. ?This is going to be an evolution, not a revolution,? says Bruce David Klein, president of the independent production company Atlas Media.

But the technological advances in Internet television come at a time when customer grumbling over escalating cable prices has grown to a roar and a younger generation of viewers more comfortable with computers than TVs is starting to set up its own households. The new alignment of attitudes is already taking a toll.

Subscriptions to cable and satellite television peaked in 2010 and have fallen five percentage points since then, the research company TDG reported late last year. Meanwhile, consumer satisfaction with cable service, which had held steady for years between 65 and 70 percent, dropped 10 percentage points.

?The most interesting part of that report, to me, was that it said a lot of the people without cable are not ?cord-cutters? but cord-never-havers,? says Jim Flynn, president of Massachusetts-based Overlook TV. ?We employ some of those people at my company. They?re in their early 20s, just out of college, and for them, paying $100 or $200 a month for cable TV is just not an option. And they don?t feel bad about it. They?re part of this millennial generation who are perfectly happy getting all their video over the Internet.?:...via Free Republic

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/26/v-fullstory/3201660/watching-tv-on-web-is-disrupting.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/26/v-fullstory/3201660/watching-tv-on-web-is-disrupting.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/26/v-fullstory/3201660/watching-tv-on-web-is-disrupting.html#storylink=cpy

Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

Source: http://xmmlbchat.blogspot.com/2013/01/internet-tv-viewing-cutting-into.html

josh hutcherson google april fools office space shell houston open mega millions winners anthony davis palm sunday

Lakers beat Jazz 102-84 to snap 4-game skid

LOS ANGELES (AP) ? Metta World Peace hit five 3-pointers on his way to scoring 17 points and the Los Angeles Lakers pulled away in the fourth quarter to beat the Utah Jazz 102-84 on Friday night, snapping a four-game skid.

Dwight Howard had 17 points and 13 rebounds, Steve Nash scored 15 and Pau Gasol added 15 points off the bench. Kobe Bryant had 14 points, a season-high 14 assists and nine rebounds to help the Lakers beat the Jazz for the first time in three meetings this season. Utah's four-game winning streak came to an end.

Howard aggravated his right shoulder in the second quarter of the Lakers' loss at Memphis on Wednesday, the same injury that caused him to miss three games two weeks ago. But he showed no ill effects from the start, scoring six points in a 15-4 spurt that opened the game and gave the Lakers the lead for good.

Derrick Favors led the Jazz with 14 points off the bench. Fellow reserve Gordon Hayward scored 13 and Al Jefferson had 12. Paul Millsap and Randy Foye added 10 points each. Utah had won six of its previous seven.

Utah cut its deficit to 78-69 early in the fourth before the Lakers began dominating the final 10 minutes. World Peace hit his fifth 3-pointer and Bryant scored four points during a 14-5 spurt that pushed Los Angeles' lead to 92-74. The Lakers were 9 of 21 from long range.

The Lakers had lost 10 of their last 12 and remain seven games below .500.

The Lakers led by 12 points early in the third before Utah closed to 61-58, capped by Favors' alley-oop dunk off a pass from Earl Watson. The Lakers fought back from 3-point range. Chris Duhon and World Peace combined for three 3-pointers and Jodie Meeks dunked to keep them ahead 72-63 going into the fourth. Gasol and Millsap got into it verbally and received double technicals as the quarter was ending.

Utah closed to 47-37 at halftime.

The Lakers' 15-4 run to start the game was helped by World Peace and Nash combining for three 3-pointers. The Jazz quickly closed within two before the Lakers stretched their lead to 26-19.

NOTES: World Peace was one 3-pointer shy of equaling his career high of six set on Feb. 28, 2009, against Chicago. ... Bryant's assists were three off his career high of 15 set on Feb. 12, 2002, against Washington. ... Utah fell to 9-16 on the road.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/lakers-beat-jazz-102-84-snap-4-game-055014545--spt.html

lee evans lee evans 49ers vs giants giants vs 49ers sf 49ers joe paterno died 49ers game

A different perspective on reverse settlements |

Before I begin my initial post, I want to thank Holly for inviting me to post on this blog.

I want to take up reverse settlements in litigation over pharmaceutical patents.? Circuits are divided on how to treat these settlements under antitrust law (Elhauge & Krueger, Texas L. Rev., 91:283, 285, 2012).? The Supreme Court has decided to take this the topic up this term; it will hear oral arguments in Federal Trade Commission v. Watson Pharmaceuticals on March 25, 2013.? However, this is a topic about which I believe the legal literature has lagged substantially behind the health economics literature.? As a result, I think the conventional (legal) views of such settlements get the economics of pharmaceutical patents and innovation wrong.? (That does not mean they are getting the law wrong. Although the law in this area is highly unsettled, the goal of the law may not coincide with economic prudence.? I am commenting primarily about economic prudence.)

Before I address a topic concerning drug companies, let me make a disclosure.? I do not receive any funding or support from drug companies, either generally, for research on reverse settlements, or for this post .? You can find more details about my past and present funding in the footnotes.[1]

To set the stage for my arguments, let me describe the conventional view of reverse settlements among most legal scholars ? and the DOJ and FTC.? A pioneer drug company gets a patent from the patent and trademark office (PTO).? That does not ensure that the patent is valid.? But as a result of the patent the pioneer has a monopoly and consumers pay a high price for the drug, with a loss to consumer and total welfare.? Any given generic drug company has no incentive to challenge the patent.? Challenges are costly.? Moreover, once the patent is invalidated, other generic companies will enter, driving economic profits to zero.? The Hatch-Waxman Act addressed this problem by giving the first generic company to successfully challenge a patent 180 days of exclusivity before other generics can enter the market.? This would allow the generic to enjoy 180 days of duopoly profits with the pioneer.? In other words, Hatch-Waxman took some potential consumer surplus (from after patent invalidation) and offered it to the generic company to get it to help eliminate invalid patents.

The problem with the Hatch-Waxman solution is that the first generic and the pioneer can collude to hurt the consumer.? Note that the pioneer?s monopoly profits (if the patent were left in place) are greater than the duopoly profits that the pioneer and first generic each get during the period of exclusivity (if the patent were invalidated).? The pioneer can offer the first generic a part of this wedge to settle its challenge in the pioneer?s favor.? This side payment ? called a reverse settlement ? increases the period of time during which the pioneer retains its profits.? In theory, these settlements undo the Hatch-Waxman solution.? Most scholars ? including my friends Scott Hemphill (on leave from Columbia) and Einer Elhauge ? argue that this hurts consumers.[2]

I think that there are many missteps in this argument.? In this post I highlight one.? I will try to highlight others in future posts.

First, the pioneer drug company?s monopoly may not reduce *static* welfare.? The conventional argument for a patent is that it encourages innovation (dynamic inefficiency).? The conventional argument against a patent is that it causes high (monopoly) prices that price some consumer out of the market (static deadweight loss or inefficiency).? Patents are given a finite duration to balance the dynamic efficiency (a benefit) and static inefficiency (a loss).? Recent empirical research in health economics suggest, however, that drug patents may not price any consumers out of the market.? A key prediction of the conventional model of patents is that, when a drug goes off patent, generic companies should enter, prices should fall, and quantity of drugs sold should rise.? However, this prediction is rejected by the data.? While drug prices fall after patent expiration, drug sales do not rise!? See the figure 1 below.? Since quantity does not rise, that strongly suggests no consumers are prevented from buying drugs due to drug patents.? There does not appear to be static welfare loss!

Figure 1: Drug quantity does not rise after patent expiration.

Source: Figure 5 from Lakdawalla, Philipson, and Wang, ?Intellectual Property and Marketing,? Journal of Law & Economics, forthcoming.

A natural question is why drug quantity does not rise after patent expiration.? (We don?t need to answer this to cast doubt on static welfare loss, but it does illuminate the gap between legal thinking about reverse settlements and health economic thinking on such settlements.)? There are two possible explanations.? The simplest explanation is that pioneer drug companies advertise their drugs and this advertisement raises consumption.? So even at monopoly prices, patients consume the same amount of drugs they would at competitive prices.? When patents expire, pioneer drug companies stop advertising because they do not appropriate the benefits of the ads; ads increase both pioneer and generic sales.? See the figure 2 below. ?The decline in ads offset the increased consumption due to the price decline after patent expiration.[3]

Figure 2: Advertising falls after patent expiration.

Source: Figure 8 from Lakdawalla, Philipson, and Wang, ?Intellectual Property and Marketing,? Journal of Law & Economics, forthcoming

A second explanation, which I like better, is that consumers do not face the monopoly price of patented.? Specifically, most consumers do not pay for drugs out of pocket.? Instead they have health insurance that covers the cost of drugs.? Health insurance does not charge consumers the full price of drugs; rather it charges a copay, e.g., $10.? This copay is close to re competitive price of drugs.? As a result, health insurance permits consumer to purchase the same amount of a patented drugs as they would if it were not patented (and not insured).[4]? The table below nicely illustrates this point.? It shows that for drugs largely covered by insurance, patent expiration is associated with no increase in drug quantity.? For drugs less well covered by insurance, there is, indeed, an increase in drug quantity. Since we now have an individual mandate that requires nearly everyone to buy insurance (or provides them government insurance), we don?t have to worry about the effect of patents on less-well insured drugs: nearly all drugs will be insured going forward.

Table 1: Patent expiration raises quantity only for drugs that are not well-insured

Source: Lakdawalla and Sood (2012).? Bold numbers indicate significantly different from zero.

Interestingly, while health insurance lowers the price of patented drugs that consumers face, it does not (have to) lower the price that pioneer drug companies receive.? The insurance company can pay the pioneer a monopoly price and charge the consumer a near-competitive price.? The reason is that insurance is a like a two-part pricing scheme where consumers are charge a large entry price (the premium) for the right to buy individual units of drugs at a low marginal price (the copay) (Lakdawalla and Sood, J. Public Economics, 2006).? In this manner, health insurance eliminates the tradeoff between dynamic efficiency and static efficiency that plague patents in non-pharmaceutical markets.

A skeptical reader might ask: if consumers consume a competitive quantity of patented drugs, but the insurer pays monopoly prices for those drugs, won?t that increase insurance premiums?? And won?t that premium increase reduce insurance consumption?? In other words, isn?t the static deadweight loss of monopoly drug prices just shifted from the drug market to the health insurance market.? There is certainly an increase in the price of premiums due to drug patents.? However, there are three reasons to think this does not result in static inefficiency.? First, employer-sponsored health insurance is tax subsidized.? This subsidy reduces the price that consumers face for insurance and thus the extent to which drug patents reduce consumption of insurance.? Second, under the Affordable Care Act, nearly all individuals are required to buy insurance.? This mandate in effect eliminates any change in quantity of insurance (at least at the extensive margin) due to changes in insurance premiums.? Thus, it also mitigates the deadweight loss from drug patents.[5]

In my next post, I will address the question of whether drug patents, even if they do not reduce total welfare, reduce consumer welfare in particular.? (Antitrust law seems more concerned with consumer surplus than total welfare.)

Notes.

[1] The one time I received money from a drug company was Pfizer in 2006; specifically I received a $35,000 grant to study a statistical question ? how to estimate heterogeneity in treatment effects using only data from parallel arm trial.? The grant did not pay for my research time; it only covered the cost of a programmer.? Because I work at a law school, I am in a hard-money environment so I do not depend on research funding for my salary. ?I finished the work for the grant within a year.? The work ? with Bart Hamilton of Washington University ? was not published.? Currently I receive funding mainly internally from the University of Chicago, but none for this project.? I thank the Microsoft Fund and the Samuel J. Kersten Faculty Fund at the University of Chicago for financial support.? I am working on a large health insurance experiment in India; but that project is primarily funded by the Department for International Development in the UK.

[2] Indeed, Einer, in his 2012 Texas Law Review article on reverse settlements notes that this problem ? collusion between patent holder and patent infringer ? afflicts all patent cases (see fn. 3).? Thus the arguments made against reverse settlements are arguments against all patent settlements.? I would go further and say that, in theory, settlement collusion is an antitrust problem in any litigation that affects market structure.? But that is a digression.

[3] A skeptic might argue that different people consumer drugs due to advertising and due to low prices.? Perhaps, but we have no evidence of this.? It is a great paper topic for a young health economist.

[4] Of course generic drugs are also covered by insurance, and sometimes at a lower copay.? But the price elasticity is sufficiently low that we do not observe a big jump in quantity upon patent expiration.

[5] A super-skeptical reader might note that the nature of the tax subsidy for health insurance implies that the static inefficiency from drug patents is felt not in the drug or insurance market, but through taxes.? The tax subsidy is proportional to the price of insurance.? Moreover, income taxes introduce distortions in labor markets proportional to the tax subsidies they must finance.? However, the size of these distortions may not be very large.? Drugs are only a fraction ? roughly 10-15% ? of all health spending; spending on patented drugs is only a portion of that.? Thus the premium increase due to patented drug prices is not large relative to the overall price of health insurance.

Source: http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/billofhealth/2013/01/26/a-different-perspective-on-reverse-settlements/

Winsor McCay Amanda Todd washington nationals Gary Collins bus driver uppercut Argo Alex Karras