text:
Important legal notice
Home | Sitemap | F.A.Q. | Glossary | Help | Contact | Search on EUROPA

Summary of Treaty

Official Title Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants
Type of Agreement Multilateral
Date of Signature 22/05/2001
Date of Entry Into Force 17/05/2004
Duration Indefinite
Agreement Suspension End Date 17/07/2006
Objective of Agreement To protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants by prohibiting, phasing out as soon as possible, or restricting the production, placing on the market and use of substances subject to the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants, or the 1998 Protocol to the 1979 Convention on Long-Range Transboundary Air Pollution on Persistent Organic Pollutants and by minimising, with a view to eliminating where feasible as soon as possible, releases of such substances, and by establishing provisions regarding waste consisting of, containing or contaminated by any of these substances.
Remarks The Stockholm Convention is a global treaty to protect human health and the environment from persistent organic pollutants (POPs). POPs are chemical substances that possess certain toxic properties and, unlike other pollutants, resist degradation, remain intact in the environment for long periods, become widely distributed geographically, accumulate in the fatty tissue of living organisms and are toxic to humans and wildlife, which makes them particularly harmful for human health and the environment. POPs circulate globally and can cause damage wherever they travel. POPs accumulate in living organisms, are transported by air, water and migratory species and accumulate in terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. They are therefore a cross-border problem on which international action is indispensable.
OJ Reference L209, 31/07/2006, p. 2
Nature of Agreement Multilateral Environmental Agreement (MEA)
Depositary United Nations
Contracting Parties European Community, Albania, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Barbados, Belarus, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chile, China, Cook Islands, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Côte d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of Congo, Denmark, Djibouti, Dominica, Ecuador, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Federated States of Micronesia, Fiji, Finland, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Ghana, Honduras, Iceland, India, Iran, Japan, Jordan, Kenya, Kiribati, Latvia, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Madagascar, Mali, Marshall Islands, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova, Monaco, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Namibia, Nauru, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Niue, Norway, Oman, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Republic of Korea, Romania, Rwanda, Saint Christopher and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Samoa, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syria, Tanzania, Thailand, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Vietnam, Yemen
Authentic Texts Arabic, Chinese, English, French, Russian, Spanish
Subject Matters Environment
atmospheric pollutant
environmental policy
organic pollution
Entry into force conditions Article 26 Convention
REIO Article 24 Convention
Settlement of disputes Article 18 Convention
Management Secretariat
Conference of the Parties
Other Links
Date of Signature 22/05/2001
Conclusion Date 16/11/2004
Ratification Status AC
Conclusion Decision Council Decision of 14 October 2004 concerning the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants; OJ L 209 of 31/07/2006, p.1
Date of Entry Into Force 14/02/2005
Reserves A declaration of EU competence exists for this treaty. To consult the text click on "to load all the summary data of the treaty".
Competence Mixed
Voting Right(s)
EC exercises voting rights of its MS contracting parties (if EC votes MS no and vice-versa) Article 23 Agreement
Legal Basis Treaty EC: Article 175

Last Update :   27/02/2009


Content-Type: application/http; msgtype=response

WARC-Type: response

text:
Single Phase to three phase power conversion

4 replies [Last post]
hainats's picture
Joined: 2014-04-01

Please, can anyone clarify how to arrive at the total power consumption from the below details?
400V, 3ph+N, total load is 17.92kW
230V, 1ph+N, total load is 16.06kW

USS Hornet's picture
Joined: 2015-01-07

The answer is 33.98kW. You simply add the loads' kW. Buildings have three-phase and single-phase loads. The service doesn't care. All it cares about is the kWs.

JPaul's picture
Joined: 2015-05-14

Gentlemen, please help.
Our power system is 3-phase, four wire 400/230V (we're using diesel generator as power source). If I have single-phase loads (L-N) of 10kVA in line A to neutral, 12kVA in line B to neutral, and 10kVA in line C to neutral and a three-phase load of 5kVA, how can I compute the total current so I know what size main circuit breaker I need?

Joseph Temowo's picture
Joined: 2015-01-07

You need a 350A Main Breaker. The loads are as follows: Ian = 43.5A, Ibn = 52.2A, Icn = 43.5A and I-3phase = 144.34A.

Breaker Size = 144.34A X 1.25 + 43.5A + 52.2A + 43.5A = 320A

Bisnes's picture
Joined: 2015-05-17

We think that the size of Main Breaker is 150 Amps, because the 3-phase load is 8.02 Amps instead 144,34 Amps.

Please or Register to post comments.

What you need to know?

1. Forum Rules 2. Forum Login

Featured Video

EC&M Learning Center

Connect With Us

Sponsored Introduction Continue on to (or wait seconds) ×

warcinfo:
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-171-96-226.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2015-35
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web for August 2015
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf


text:
24 February 2012

Everyday Life in China: Making the Strange Familiar and the Familiar Strange

One of the great pleasures of living in a foreign place is in figuring out how to do the simple, everyday tasks we take for granted at home. For me, this challenge is ramped up an order of magnitude by my total ignorance of spoken and written Mandarin. The painter Paul Klee was fond of saying that art's purpose is, "To make the strange familiar and the familiar strange." I like that as one of the things that makes life worth living. In locating the toilets nearest my classrooms, I found posted these signs that help make my point (I will spare the Germanic Sauberkeitsfanatiker among you a photo of the squat toilets!):

My office, except for the strange multiple deadbolt lock on the door, was immediately familiar. I spent a few hours moving in yesterday, setting up class files on my computer, and enjoying this comfortable and "clean, well-lighted space" (as Hemingway said):

I took a break to walk outside, find a place to sit with good feng shui, enjoy an orange, listen to the strumming guitar and folk singing of an aspiring student-artist, and watch these handsome birds (species, anyone?):

Later, I decided I needed some file folders, notecards, and a pair of scissors. The student books & dry goods store we take for granted on American universities do not exist here. A quick Google search for nearby office supplies/stationary stores proved fruitless. Time to walk!

I journeyed over to the commercial area near campus, remembered a side street where a colleague helped me buy a Chinese phone (turns out my iPhone is the only model every made without a sim card: thank you very much, Verizon), and -- after less than an hour of searching -- found the perfect little shop crowded with an impossible, jumbled, totally delightful array of office supplies. The proprietors, whom I took to be a married couple, waived away my awkward sign language with a friendly gesture that I took to mean, "Go find what you want!" After pawing around through stacks and bins, I found the requisite items (no one, it seems, uses hard copy file folders anymore, so these were in an especially obscure and buried place). My one successful effort at sign language, a scissoring action with my index and middle fingers, produced a box of diverse scissors from which I chose a mid-priced, older pair that might date to the Cultural Revolution. Acquisition in hand, I ventured back out to the street and at a busy intersection lingered to take in the scene and record some photographs:

The latter (above) is especially informative about my new home:

  • Bang-bang men and women are common (left in photo), carrying loads for hire using their strong shoulder poles. Some of the poles are simply bamboo stalks, and others are carefully crafted and wide to be as strong, light and comfortable as possible;
  • Older people tend to dress in dark and fairly drab styles;
  • Younger people tend to dress in bright, gay colors;
  • The streets and storefronts are often brightly decorated;
  • I sense that people do not like to have their photo taken (and generally avoid it); and
  • Everyone dresses in warm layers (note the down coats!) despite the low 50s deg F weather.

I had planned to hike on Jinyun Mountain -- a 3,000 foot high ridge that separates Beibei from Chongqing -- with a colleague today, but alas after a dry week a steady rain has settled in.

Should Fish More said...

When i lived in Japan, those decades below, I quickly learned the ideograms for toilet, coffee, and train. Hope your time there is enjoyable, it sounds like fun.

Richard Gibson said...

Way cool. Thanks for sharing.

Veronica Wald said...

Regarding the shoulder poles and paniers, which were doubtless in even wider use when I was in China in the early 1980s, I'm sure you've noticed that the bamboo stem has the particular advantage of flexibility that allows the user to trot along quickly, gently bouncing the load so that for the second or so when the baskets are at their apogee the shoulder is relieved of the (often considerable) weight of the baskets. I'm glad you're having such a wondrous time!

sandy said...

Thanks for showing life there. It is very interesting.

Judy said...

It has been a while, so I just finished reading all your posts. Sounds like you are having a good time! Glad to know that you have internet access, so I will be able to follow you!

troutbirder said...

How fascinating. The Professor seems to be adapting quickly and well. Keep the posts coming, Pat... :)

Loran said...

Wow, talk about a lifestyle change! How fascinating. I had to look and see why you won't be posting Skywatch shots and now I know. I'll come back for more armchair visits of China.

BLD in MT said...

Wow! I just read all the China post and all I can say is wow! It is all so fascinating! I can't wait to see and learn more through your posts. I hope your stay continues to be so enjoyable (smog aside, of course)!

Maria said...

How amazing it is to visit your blog and read all of this exciting news!
What an honor to be in China as a Fulbright Scholar! It will be wonderful for them as well to have you there to share your knowledge!

My niece is from China ~ so much of what you have mentioned here is reminiscent of my sister and brother-in-law's trip there 6 years ago.
I will look forward to reading your posts ~ best wishes and much JOY to you,


text:
The Importance of Ecumenical Dialogue

The Importance of Ecumenical Dialogue
"Oh PLEASE say I'm the Archbishop of Canterbury!"

Saturday, 27 August 2011

GK's Weekly, The Thing, The Mask Of The Agnostic

SIR ARTHUR KEITH, in his recent remarks on the soul, let the cat out of the bag. He let it out of that very prim and proper professional bag which is carried by the "medical man" whom he described as conscientiously compelled to assert that the life of the soul ceases with the breath of the body. Perhaps the figure which fits in so well with the bag is less fortunate in the case of the cat; a mystic animal, whose nine lives might rather be supposed to represent immortality, at least in the form of reincarnation. But anyhow, he let the cat out of the bag; in the sense of revealing a secret which such wise men would be wiser to keep. It is the secret that such scientists do not speak as scientists, but simply as materialists. That is, they do not give their conclusions, but simply their opinions; and a very shaky sort of opinions some of them are.

Not long ago, in his famous address on Anthropoids to the Congress at Leeds, Sir Arthur Keith said that he spoke simply as the foreman of a jury. It is true that he had not apparently consulted the jury; and it was rapidly made clear that the jury violently disagreed; which is unusual in a jury after the foreman has delivered the verdict. Still, in using this image he meant to claim complete impartiality of a judicial sort. He meant that a juryman is bound by oath to go entirely by the facts and the evidence, without fear or favour. And this effect would be a hundred times more effective if we were left free to imagine that the juryman's personal sympathies might be on the other side; or at least, if we did not know that they were very keenly on the one side. Sir Arthur should have been careful to preserve the impression that, speaking strictly and solely as an anthropologist, he was forced to accept the natural selection of anthropoids. He should then have left it to be inferred that, merely as a private person, he might be yearning for seraphic visions and celestial hopes; he might be searching the Scriptures or awaiting the Apocalypse. For all it was any business of ours, or any business of anybody's, he might be in private life a Mormon multiplying the stars in his heavenly crown or a Holy Roller continually convulsed by the Holy Ghost. The point was that the facts forced the Darwinian conclusion upon him. And a man of that sort, being forced to accept them, would be a real witness because a reluctant witness. In the trial of Darwin the man might feel for the plaintiff, but the juryman would be forced to find for the defendant.

And now Sir Arthur Keith has thrown the whole of that imperial impartiality away. He has gone out of his way to dogmatise and lay down the law about the soul; which has nothing to do with his subject, except in so far as it is everybody's subject. But while it does not relate to what is his subject, it has told everybody which is his side. It has turned the foreman of the jury into a very unmistakable advocate for that side. Indeed, such a partisan is more like a party to the suit than an advocate; since it is the whole point that as a private person he has long had the private prejudice. Henceforth it is obvious that Keith deciding for Darwin is simply like Bradlaugh deciding for Darwin, or Ingersoll deciding for Darwin, or any atheist on a stool in Hyde Park deciding for Darwin. When THEY choose the side of natural selection, we can all agree that it is a very natural selection.

As to the conclusion itself, it seems almost incredibly inconclusive. Unless Sir Arthur Keith is very badly misreported, he specially stated that spiritual existence ceases with the physical functions; and that no medical man could conscientiously say anything else. However grave be the injury called death (which indeed is often fatal), this strikes me as a case in which it is quite unnecessary to call in a medical man at all. There is always a certain irony, even in the simple pages of my favourite detective stories, in the fact that everybody rushes for a doctor as soon as they are quite certain that a man is dead. But in the detective story there may at least be something to be learnt by the doctor from the dead body. In the doctrinal speculation there is nothing whatever; and it does but confuse the eternal detective story for the doctor of medicine to pretend to be a doctor of divinity. The truth is that all this business about "a medical man" is mere bluff and mystagogy. The medical man "sees" that the mind has ceased with the body. What the medical man sees is that the body can no longer kick, talk, sneeze, whistle or dance a jig. And a man does not need to be very medical in order to see that. But whether the principle of energy, that once made it kick, talk, sneeze, whistle and dance, does or does not still exist on some other plane of existence-- a medical man knows no more about that than any other man. And when medical men were clear-headed, some of them (like an ex-surgeon named Thomas Henry Huxley) said they did not believe that medical men or any men could know anything about it. That is an intelligible position; but it does not seem to be Sir Arthur Keith's position. He has been put up publicly to DENY that the soul survives the body; and to make the extraordinary remark that any medical man must say the same. It is as if we were to say that any competent builder or surveyor must deny the possibility of the Fourth Dimension; because he has learnt the technical secret that a building is measured by length, breadth and height. The obvious query is--Why bring in a surveyor? Everybody knows that everything is in fact measured by three dimensions. Anybody who thinks there is a fourth dimension thinks so in spite of being well aware that things are generally measured by three. Or it is as if a man were to answer a Berkeleian metaphysician, who holds all matter to be an illusion of mind, by saying, "I can call the evidence of an intelligent navvy who actually has to deal with solid concrete and cast iron; and he will tell you they are quite real." We should naturally answer that we do not need a navvy to tell us that solid things are solid; and it is quite in another sense that the philosopher says they are not solid. Similarly, there is nothing to make a medical man a materialist, except what might make any man a materialist. And it is when a man has absorbed all that obvious materialism that he begins to use his mind. And, as some hold, does not stop.

This very unphilosophical irruption into philosophy was, however, in one way enlightening. It threw a light backwards on the speaker's previous proclamation on things on which he has more right to speak. Even in those things he betrayed a curious simplicity common among such official scientists. The truth is that they become steadily less scientific and more official. They develop that thin disguise that is the daily wear of politicians. They perform before us the most artful tricks with the most artless transparency. It is like watching a child trying to hide something. They are perpetually trying to bluff us with big words and learned allusions; on the assumption that we have never learnt anything--even of their own funny little ways. Every leader-writer who thunders "Galileo" at us assumes that we know even less about Galileo than he does. Every preacher of popular science who throws a long word at us thinks we shall have to look it up in the dictionary and hopes we shall not study it seriously even in the encyclopaedia. Their use of science is rather like the use made of it by the heroes of certain adventure stories, in which the white men terrify the savages by predicting an eclipse or producing an electric shock. These are in a sense true demonstrations of science. They are in a sense right in saying that they are scientists. Where they are perhaps wrong is in supposing that we are savages.

But it is rather amusing for us who watch the preparations for giving us an electric shock, when we are seriously expected to be shocked by the shock. It is rather a joke when we, the benighted savages, are ourselves not only quite capable of predicting the eclipse, but capable of predicting the prediction. Now, among these facts that have been familiar to us for a long time is the fact that men of science stage and prepare their effects exactly as politicians do. They also do it rather badly--exactly as politicians do. Neither of these two modern mystagogues has yet realised how transparent his tricks have become. One of the most familiar and transparent of them is what is known as the "official contradiction." It is a strange symbolic way of declaring that something has happened by denying that it has happened. So whitewashing reports are published after political scandals as regularly as bluebooks. So the Right Honourable Gentleman hopes it is not necessary for him to contradict what he feels sure the Honourable Member could not have intended to insinuate. So a Cabinet Minister is put up to deny from a platform that there is any change in the Government's policy about Damascus. And so Sir Arthur Keith is put up to deny that there is any change in the scientific attitude about Darwin.

And when we hear that, we all give a sort of sigh of satisfaction; for we all know exactly what THAT means. It means more or less the opposite of what it says. It means that there has been a devil of a row about Damascus inside the Party, or, in other words, that there is beginning to be a devil of a scandal about discredited Darwinians inside the scientific world. The curious thing is that in the latter case the officials are not only solemn in uttering the official contradiction, but much more simple in supposing that nobody will realize that it is official. In the case of the similar legal fiction in politics, the politicians by this time not only know the truth, but often know that we know the truth. Everybody knows by this time, by the gossip that is repeated everywhere, exactly what is meant by the absolute agreement on everything which binds the Prime Minister and all his colleagues. The Prime Minister does not really expect us to believe that he is the holy and beloved king of a brotherhood of knights sworn to a faith and giving their hearts to him alone. But Sir Arthur Keith does really expect us to believe that he is the foreman of a jury containing all the different men of science, all absolutely agreed that Darwin's particular opinion was "eternal." That is what I mean by childish concealment; and the artless or transparent trick. That is why I say that they do not even know how much we know.

For the politician is less pompously absurd than the anthropologist, even if we test it by what they both call Progress; which is mostly only another word for Time. We all know the official optimism which always defends the present government. But this is like an official defence of all the past governments. If a man were to say that the politics of Palmerston were eternal, we should think him a little out of date. Yet Darwin was prominent at about the same date as Palmerston; and is quite equally dated. If Mr. Lloyd George were to get up and say that the great Liberal Party had not receded from one single position taken up by Gobden and Bright, the only true Tribunes of the People, we should reluctantly conclude (if such a thing be conceivable) that he was talking party claptrap to people ignorant of the history of the party. If a social reformer were to affirm solemnly that all social philosophy was still proceeding strictly on the principles of Herbert Spencer, we should know it was doing nothing of the sort, and that only an absolutely fossilized official could pretend that it was. Yet Darwin and Spencer were not only contemporaries but comrades and allies; and the Darwinian biology and the Spencerian sociology were regarded as parts of the same movement, which our grandfathers regarded as a very modern movement. Even considered a priori as a matter of probability it therefore seems rather unlikely that the science of that generation was any more infallible than its ethics and politics. Even on the principles Sir Arthur professes, it seems very queer that there should now be no more to be said about Darwinism than he said about it. But we do not need to appeal to those principles or those probabilities. We can appeal to the facts. As it happens, we do know something about the facts; and Sir Arthur Keith does not seem to know that we know.

It was in a Catholic paper that certain statements were made about Darwinism to-day; statements which Sir Arthur Keith himself went out of his way to contradict; and about which Sir Arthur Keith himself was proved sensationally and disastrously wrong. Probably the story is now known to all readers of that paper; but it will possibly never come to the knowledge of most other journalists, and it certainly will not be recorded in most of the other papers. Touching this cosmic controversy, most of the other papers are emphatically party papers; and they support the party leader when he publishes the official contradiction. They will not let the public know how triumphantly his other contradiction was contradicted.

When Mr. Belloc stated that these Darwinians were out of date and ignorant of recent biology, he quoted among a great many other recent authorities the French biologist Vialleton as denying the possibility of natural selection in a particular case connected with reptiles and birds. Sir Arthur Keith, coming to the rescue of Mr. H. G. Wells, and eager to prove that he and Mr. Wells were not out of date or ignorant of recent biology, proceeded to contradict Mr. Belloc flatly. He said that there was no such statement in Vialleton's book; in other words, he accused Mr. Belloc of having misquoted or misrepresented Vialleton's book. It then appeared, to the amazement of everybody, and especially of Mr. Belloc, that Sir Arthur Keith did not even know of the existence of the book. He was referring only to an early and elementary work by the same author published long ago. That was the last he had ever read of Vialleton. The important book, of which even I, a mere unscientific man in the street, had heard at least something, had never come to his ears at all. In short, the general charge, that Darwinians are out of date in their information, was proved about as completely as anything controversial can ever be proved in this world.

Now, when a thing like that has happened, above all when it has happened to us, in the pages of a paper in which I write, in the experience of one of my own friends, how can it be expected that people in our position should take seriously the speech at the opening of the British Association at Leeds? How can we keep a straight face when the President strikes an attitude as if pointing to the stars and declaring Darwinism equally eternal? That sort of thing is not meant for us; but for the reporters; just as the true story of Wells and Belloc is generally kept out of the reports.

1 comment:

Left-footer said...

Splendid, but sad that there is no one left with the intellectual robustness of Chesterton.

Thank you, and God bless.


text:
Ohio school districts refuse to compete with nuns

State Rep. Matt Huffman is trying to build support for a promising effort
to expand private school vouchers to more working-class families in
Ohio. In order to appease recalcitrant school districts, whose
executives vocally oppose the measure, he may remove any benefit
youngsters in wealthier districts could hope to get out of the program,

Originally, the bill would have granted vouchers of up to $4,626
based on a family’s economic circumstances. But managers in more than
300 school districts have complained about the possible loss of state
and local funding, apparently afraid of competition for students’
dollars from the parochial school down the block. Huffman now wants to
limit the amount of each voucher to the total per-pupil aid the child’s
school district receives from the state. This means that children in
property-rich suburbs, where a growing number of poor families are concentrated,
could get just a few hundred bucks a year when they leave for a private
school, while many thousands of dollars stay with the school district.

It’s hard to imagine a worse trade-off: Districts get to keep the
cash without providing services, while poor and working-class parents in
the ‘burbs are forced to scrimp and save even more than their urban
counterparts to have some measure of control over their children’s
education. Choice-friendly legislators and advocacy groups in Ohio
should ask themselves, who are the state’s education dollars intended to
benefit: school budget officers, or kids?

More By Author

Related Articles


WARC-Truncated: length

text:
Senior Consultant (& former Editor-in-Chief & Publishing Director), New Scientist; Author, After the Ice

Green oil is the development that will utterly change the world and it will arrive in the next few decades.

Oil that we take out of the ground and burn is going to be replaced by oil that we grow. Bio-fuels based on corn are our first effort to grow green oil but they have clearly not succeeded. Current bio-fuels take too much land and too much energy to grow and too much of that energy goes into building parts of a plant that we can't easily convert into fuel. The answer will come from simple, engineered organisms that can soak up energy in a vat in any sunny spot and turn that sunlight straight into a precursor for fuel, preferably a precursor that can go straight into an existing oil refinery that can turn out gasoline.

The impacts of such a development are staggering. The power balance of the world will be completely changed. Petro-dictatorships, where an endless flow of oil money keeps the population quiet, will no longer be able to look forward to oil at $50, $100, $150 and so on a barrel as oil supplies tighten. Power will be back in the hands of innovators rather than resource owners. The quest for dirty oil in remote and sensitive parts of the world, whether the Arctic or the Alberta tar sands, will not make economic sense and the environment will gain. The burning of gasoline in automobiles will no longer add much to the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as the fuel will have soaked up an almost equal amount of carbon dioxide while it was being grown. The existing networks for delivering fuel to transportation (the 100,000 gas station in the US for example) won't become redundant as they would if we switched to electric autos, making plans for cutting emissions much less difficult.

Will the green oil come from algae, bacteria, archaea or something else? I don't know. Oil is a natural product arising from the transformation of plant material created by the capture of light. As it is a transformation in nature we can replicate it, not necessarily directly, but to arrive at a similar result. It is not magic.

Scientists around the world have seen the prize and hundreds of millions are going into start-up companies. There is a nice twist to this line of investment. Despite the ups and downs, the long-term trend for the price of oil is up. That means the size of the prize for replacing oil is going up while the size of the challenge is going down. Replacing $20-a-barrel oil would be difficult but replacing $100 oil is much easier.

There is an old saying: "The Stone Age didn't end because we ran out of stone. Someone came up with a better idea". The better idea is coming.


text:
Return to Transcripts main page

Reliable Sources Segment

Aired February 1, 2009 - 10:00   ET

KING: This is "State of the Union." Here's what we have ahead on this Sunday, February 1st.

One sportswriter has a rather unusual perspective on tonight's Super Bowl. His son is star Cardinals receiver Larry Fitzgerald. Dad swears he can still be objective. Howard Kurtz will talk it out with Larry Fitzgerald, Sr.

In the next hour, CNN's Ali Velshi will join the best political team on television to ask if pure party politics is standing in the way of a rescue plan for the troubled economy.

And then two key senators tell us whether more partisan divide or compromise will mark the urgent next chapter of the economic stimulus debate. Democrat Dianne Feinstein of California and Republican John Ensign of Nevada, that's all ahead on "State of the Union."

Time now, as we do every Sunday, to hand over to my partner, "Reliable Sources" host Howie Kurtz.

And, Howie, as I do so, let's take a quick look at some of the Sunday newspapers around the country. We have right here the San Jose Mercury News "Closing In, The Housing Crisis Reaches Wealthier Valley Communities." That, of course, a huge issue, this housing crisis part of the reason the economy is struggling so much, on the front page of newspapers across the country, including San Jose this morning.

Let's move over to the San Francisco Chronicle. "Jolt Needed Even If It's Not Perfect, Experts Say." So you see, Howie, already newspapers saying, "You know what? If you don't get it perfect, we'll still take some money to help with the economy out in California."

And I know this subject, Howie, is coming up. This is the part of your program I am most fascinated about. Sure, up in Maine in the Morning Sentinel they say, "The stimulus is welcome, but Super Sunday at area churches," a number of churches not only combining worship, but getting in on the Super Bowl party, as well.

So I should start, Howie, who's your pick?

KURTZ: Well, everybody's getting in on the Super Bowl, and I'm not going to embarrass myself on national television by saying I think the Steelers will win, but it is fascinating. You mentioned Larry Fitzgerald the sportswriter. If my daughter was going to take over the "CBS Evening News," if Katie got tired of doing it, I'd be up on this table cheering for her, but this guy says he's not going to cheer for his son, who's, of course, the star receiver for the Arizona Cardinals.

KING: I think you just said on national television who you think is going to win the Super Bowl, but we'll rewind the tape a bit later. But I'm going to let you take it away, Howie, because I'm fascinated on this one.

KING: I'll watch the Super Bowl tonight. And I'll, I guess, watch Larry Fitzgerald's report tomorrow to see how he handles his objectivity.

KURTZ: Absolutely. All right. Thanks, John.

Also ahead on RELIABLE SOURCES, we'll look at the front page "New York Times" story that prompted the new president's attack on Wall Street, on the much maligned main street media helping to set the agenda for the Obama White House.

But first, if you own a television set, you've seen the Blago show this week, you've seen Rod Blagojevich rail about his innocence while ducking the questions in one television studio after another. You've seen the now-former Illinois governor compare himself to Gandhi and Mandela and Martin Luther King.

You've seen him talk about how the mean legislators back home weren't being fair to him. You've seen him talk about appointing Oprah to a Senate seat. You know, the one he's accused of selling because it's "bleeping" golden.

But what about Diane and Barbara and Larry and the rest? Should they have given the guy a platform even as he deflected or ignored their questions?

RACHEL MADDOW, MSNBC: Do you feel like, weirdly, in a way, that you're sort of winning? That there's a chance you might politically survive this ordeal?

DIANE SAWYER, ABC NEWS: Why aren't you in Illinois saying this to the members of your own legislature instead of here?

LARRY KING, CNN: U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald is a pretty respected guy. You think he was just making this up?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: You compared yourself to the character that Jimmy Stewart plays in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," where you see the good guy take on the establishment. Is that how you see yourself?

GERALDO RIVERA, FOX NEWS: You know, I totally agree with you, and I have opined that on the air. But the problem is, those tapes sound so tacky. They sound as if you're attempting to sell the office.

BARBARA WALTERS, "THE VIEW": Let me ask this one question. Did you say in context, out of context -- it's on a wire tape -- did you say those things? UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What are your thoughts about Reverend Wright now?

CYNTHIA MCFADDEN, ABC NEWS: You've been called narcissistic, delusional, a sociopath. One state senator says that you're not playing with a full deck.

Are you playing with a full deck?

JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW": On some of the tapes, you and your wife are potty mouths. I mean, not that I have anything against that.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because you're a potty mouth.

KURTZ: Not that the media blitz did him much good. The Illinois Senate is booting Blago from office Thursday by a unanimous vote. Unless his goal with all these interviews was something other than saving his job.

Joining us now in Chicago, Phil Rosenthal, media columnist for "The Chicago Tribune." In Los Angeles, Lisa Bloom, host of "Lisa Bloom in Court" and anchor for "In Session" on truTV, part of CNN's parent company, Time Warner. And here in Washington, Dana Milbank, CNN contributor and author of "The Washington Sketch Column" for "The Washington Post."

Lisa Bloom, what should all of these anchors have done when Blago came on, proclaimed his innocence, but refused repeatedly to discuss the charges?

LISA BLOOM, HOST, "LISA BLOOM IN COURT": Well, it would have been great to ask him some hard questions about what he would have done if the law had been fair to him, because his big complaint was that it was unfair. So, for example, what evidence would you have called? What witnesses would you have called? What are you being prohibited from doing? Instead of just giving him an platform to complain about swearing and children's health care and all of the things that were completely irrelevant to the issue at hand.

KURTZ: Let's try something. You be you and I'll be Blago. Just a minute here.

KURTZ: OK. Now Lisa, these excerpts were out of context.

KURTZ: "I would love to talk to you about it," "the fix was in," "when the story comes out I'll be vindicated."

What's your question to me?

BLOOM: Yes. First of all, your hair needs to be down a little bit further.

Well, my question is, frankly, Governor, you're an attorney, you should know better. You know that you have to preserve your legal rights by making those arguments in the courtroom or, in this case, in the Senate chamber, where the hearing is taking place. Why haven't you done that? Why are you going to the media, which gives you no legal recourse? If your legal arguments are as valid as you say, why aren't you asserting them in a court of law?

KURTZ: Lisa, this was all about my trying to get health care for the poor people of Illinois. If they can kick me out, they can kick anybody out. Surely you can see that.

BLOOM: I mean, does anybody believe that? That is just preposterous.

And by the way, I think he had some valid arguments about the legal process. I think if he had asserted them personally, or through an attorney, he might have gotten some traction. But it's really that "I'm going to take my marbles and go home" approach. You know, when a child says, "Well, I really have an answer, I'm just not going to tell you." And we all know that they just really don't have an answer, and I think that's how it played out.

KURTZ: And we'll come back to that.

Dana Milbank, this mirror is here if you want to use it.

DANA MILBANK, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Thank you. I appreciate it.

KURTZ: You got a great kick out of this. You wrote, "The man's entertainment skills are unimpeachable." So were the anchors kind of reduced to straight men and women for his comedy stylings?

MILBANK: I think they did a great job of it. I think Blagojevich is a national treasure. They should be on permanent exhibit over at the Smithsonian.

And look, he lost essentially the battle in the legislature, he's not looking very good for his legal one. He's now facing the battle for public opinion. And I think the ladies of "The View" were great. They said, would you please put your fingers up like this and say, "I am not a crook"?

That's exactly the way we should be treating him, like a clown. And he behaved just as you would expect, like a clown.

KURTZ: We have some videotape that will underscore that point in just a minute.

But Phil Rosenthal, of the many anchors on the many stations on the many programs that we watch, who do you think did the best job of trying to pin Blagojevich down? PHIL ROSENTHAL, MEDIA COLUMNIST, "CHICAGO TRIBUNE": Well, nobody did it particularly well, but -- in terms of being effective, but I thought Barbara Walters, Cynthia McFadden and maybe even Rachel Maddow did a pretty good job of trying to nail him down and trying to advance this thing.

KURTZ: Lisa Bloom, let me play for you an argument that Blagojevich made again and again in these interviews and ask you a question on the other side.

L. KING: Can't you present witnesses? You can't go there tomorrow and bring people to stand up for you and explain the other side? You can't do that?

GOV. ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, D-ILL.: No. Not only can I not bring witnesses, they are not required to prove a case up.

These are the lawmakers in Springfield denying me the right to bring those witnesses who would help clear my name.

I can't even bring witnesses in.

I haven't been given the right by the Senate to bring witnesses in.

It's called the Sixth Amendment, the right to call witnesses to defend yourself.

KURTZ: Lisa, what was wrong with the way the anchors let him make that argument about witnesses?

BLOOM: Well, apparently, nobody really looked at the Senate rules. And I read all of the Senate rules and, in fact, he does have the right to call witnesses under Rule 15, he had the right to subpoena witness.

Now, the end of the rules said that he wasn't supposed to call any witnesses that would be relevant in the criminal case, but the Articles of Impeachment were far broader than the narrow criminal charges that were brought against him. So he certainly could have called witnesses on many of the claim. He just chose not to.

I think he's right about the Sixth Amendment. I think if the man's potentially losing his job as a democratically-elected governor, he should have due process rights, he should have the right to call witnesses on all claims. But to do that, he would have had to assert the right in the Senate.

The time passed, he didn't do it. Instead, he talked to Barbara Walter and Larry King, which was a dumb legal strategy.

KURTZ: But maybe a good media strategy. Dana Milbank, you got your knuckles wrapped this week by David Broder, the dean of the Washington press corps -- or a "Washington Post" colleague writing that you "... treated Blagojevich as if he were a kind of lovable rascal, a scamp to be enjoyed for the laughs he provides."

How do you plead?

MILBANK: Guilty. I always agree with David Broder, so I immediately have to start criticizing myself for my behavior here.

But, you know, in reality, I think what David's saying is this is a serious thing, this man has done very horrible things, so we can't have fun with him. I take a slightly different view.

And yes, I agree, it appears, by all measures, this man has done horrible things. And that's precisely why we should treat him as an article of ridicule. I think that is a way you deal with a guy like this. That doesn't mean he didn't do anything bad, that we're treating him like a clown, it means he did.

KURTZ: Phil Rosenthal, he seemed to be having a good time as he went through just about every network this side of the Disney Channel. I want to play for you something that was behinds the scenes at the D.L. Hughley program. He, of course, hosts a late-night comedic program on CNN. And Blagojevich drops the "F" bomb, which we have conveniently bleeped out.

Let's roll it.

ROSENTHAL: Really? He did?

BLAGOJEVICH: That's going to get me in trouble.

D.L. HUGHLEY, CNN: Man, you're already in trouble.

KURTZ: Have we got that tape?

BLAGOJEVICH: That's going get me in trouble.

HUGHLEY: Man, you're already in trouble, man.

HUGHLEY: I'm a bad influence.

BLAGOJEVICH: Oh (EXPLETIVE DELETED). They're going throw me out anyway. Who cares? (END VIDEO CLIP)

KURTZ: "They're going to throw me out anyway. Who cares?"

Now, to most Americans, I think Blagojevich looked like something of a laughing stock this week. But from Chicago, did it seem like, look, "Nightline" and "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America" were giving him a platform?

ROSENTHAL: Well, it was an object of curiosity. I mean, the truth is, all he really succeeded in this media tour is, you know, ensuring that more people know how to pronounce the name Blagojevich, which is no small achievement, but not what he was looking to do.

He managed to move the conversation nationally, at least, away from the actual proceedings and distract in that sense. It was not terribly effective, obviously, in the Senate. I don't know that it necessarily swayed anybody who might be in the future jury pool for our former governor.

The thing about him is, he's throwing out a lot of things. When he said "Senator Oprah," you began to think, well, what is this guy doing? Is he trying to set the precedent for the people in the jury when they hear the tapes of what he said to think, well, he says a lot of things and he probably doesn't mean all of them? I don't know. But he didn't change anyone's perception, and...

KURTZ: Right.

ROSENTHAL: ... you know, the interviewers, on the other hand, didn't get anywhere away from, effectively, the Obama Senate seat sale. So, that was...

KURTZ: Let me jump to Lisa...

ROSENTHAL: ... a problem for him, I thought.

KURTZ: ... Bloom -- OK.

You know, you raised the point about everybody asked about selling the Senate seat because that was the sexiest charge, auctioning off Barack Obama's seat to presumably the highest bidder. But there were all these other allegations about trying to pressure "The Chicago Tribune" into firing critical editorial writers, trying to shake down a children's hospital for contributions. And I was just surprised that more of those allegations weren't made in these various interviews.

Now, Phil Rosenthal made the point about the jury pool, so a lot of pundits came on the air and said, OK, what he's doing here is he's speaking to potential jurors in case he winds up getting indicted by a grand jury. Does that tactic work?

BLOOM: No, it doesn't work at all. And, in fact, I think it turns people against him. I don't think he's really tainting a jury pool. I mean, let's get real. I think he's a guy with a big ego, he loves going on all these shows, he loves talking, and he knew he'd have a better chance there, at least he'd have a slim chance of changing some minds there, if he actually went to the hearing and asserted his legal argument. He was probably going to lose, and so, you know, it was big bluff. He was pretending as though, oh, I have all these great arguments, if I could only assert them in the hearing, but since I can't, I'll just go on "The Today Show" and "Good Morning America."

I don't think anybody buys that.

KURTZ: Well, you said the key word, "ego."

Now, after telling all of these interviewers, Dana Milbank, that this was a kangaroo court, he wasn't going to dignify the proceedings, and he wasn't going to go to Springfield, he goes to Springfield, he addresses the Senate for 43 minutes.

Here's just a little taste of what Blagojevich said.

BLAGOJEVICH: ... what a thrill it was for me to be able to, as a freshman congressman, be in a room with legendary U.S. senators like John Glenn and Ted Kennedy and John McCain and John Warner, the senator from Virginia who, incidentally, had once been married to Elizabeth Taylor.

KURTZ: The Elizabeth Taylor defense. And the cable networks all took it live.

MILBANK: Sure. You know, I think we're analyzing this in the sense of, you know, his battle with the legislature, his legal battle. I think he's basically given that up. And this is a man who has got "bleeping" nothing to lose here.

And he says, well, I'm going down, I might as well become a noted historical figure. And I think that's what's behind this media blitz. That's what's behind, you know, reading Tennyson and Kipling and comparing himself from everybody from Gary Cooper to Nelson Mandela. It's just saying, I am going to be remembered. You know, I might as well go out as a character.

KURTZ: I am someone, everyone now knows who I am.

And on that point, Phil Rosenthal, after he was convicted by the Senate and booted out of office, and Pat Quinn became the new governor of Illinois, he comes out again at his house and talks to reporters, and he says the following...

BLAGOJEVICH: So if I, like, asked you guys to come and cover me if I want to say something, will you do it? Will you? Who gets the last hurrah?

KURTZ: So I would ask you, if this was the last hurrah, Lynn Sweet reporting in "The Chicago Sun-Times" that Blagojevich may go on more TV shows this week, even as the former governor, suggesting that he his kind of addicted to the talk show circuit.

ROSENTHAL: Well, clearly, he's not going anywhere. This was not exactly Dick Nixon saying, "You won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore." This is, hey, I'm here if you want to kick.

I think, you know, what he's done, he did not change public perception of him. "S&L" still came at him the same way they always have. You know, he wanted for people to think that he was doing Jimmy Stewart from "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." A lot of the time it seemed line Jimmy Stewart in "Harvey" talking to an imaginary bunny.

But I don't think he's going anywhere. I think this is all part of -- you know, when he mentions name checks, Elizabeth Taylor, he's trying to cast the TV movie already.

KURTZ: All right. And WGN Radio owned by...

BLOOM: And Howie, those of us who do talk shows, he's always welcome. He's always welcome to come on. We want to encourage that.

KURTZ: Are you booking him right now?

BLOOM: "Lisa Bloom Open Court," every -- come on down!

ROSENTHAL: Are you going to get him to say something he hasn't said?

KURTZ: All right. Well, we'll have to see what he takes that invitation. I have a feeling we have not seen the last of Rod Blagojevich.

Let me get a break here.

When we come back, no laughing matter. After nearly 30 years, will "Nightline "be squeezed out by another late-night comic?

Plus, the former congressman who went low, really low, in debating a female editor.

KURTZ: This seems to be the season for television comedy. Jay Leno moving up to 10:00. Conan moving up to 11:35 to take on Letterman.

So when "The New York Times" reported this week that ABC's Jimmy Kimmel has had talks with network officials about moving his program up to 11:35, it sent off a few shock waves. That, of course, the time slot occupied for nearly three decades by "Nightline." ABC executives insist there are no changes in the works and that "Nightline" is safe. But is it?

Lisa Bloom, everyone likes comedy. It's fun, it's cheap to put on, as opposed to, what do you call it, reporting? Can a late-night program like "Nightline" survive in this era?

BLOOM: Oh, I hope it can. It's such a venerable old institution. But honestly, how many of us really watch it? And how many people want to watch hard news at 11:30? Unfortunately, most people are watching comedy at that hour, which is why the perfect combination is "The Daily Show," because it's news and comedy.

KURTZ: When "Nightline" started in 1979, there was no cable news, so it was a way to get a quick late fix.

Phil Rosenthal, when Ted Koppel left the program and Cynthia McFadden, Terry Moran and Martin Bashir took over as anchors, I was kind of skeptical about its prospects. But in recent months, "Nightline" has beaten Letterman about 40 percent of the time in its ratings, and yet it always seems to be threatened by the rumor of some new comic who's going to come in and perhaps take that coveted timeslot.

ROSENTHAL: Well, it's true. And it's because news, and particularly "Nightline," skews a little old in the audience. And the advertisers seem to covet the younger crowd.

And as a result, those comedy shows are really valuable. Plus, they're very inexpensive to produce.

I think you're always going to be under threat. You know, they make -- whatever ABC says, this is a company that's laying people off like everyone else. I think they're going to look at every dollar, and where they can make it, and where it's costing them things. And, you know, "Nightline" is like any other show now. I think it has to fight for its survival.

KURTZ: You mean it's less distinctive as a news show than it was in the Koppel era?

ROSENTHAL: Well, it certainly is less distinctive than it was in the Koppel era. I mean, the other night -- and maybe this speaks to the pressure the producers feel they're under -- you know, they did an interview with Drew Peterson, the Bollingbrook policeman whose wives...

BLOOM: Hey, nothing wrong with that.

ROSENTHAL: ... have a series of -- well, the wives have a series bad luck, shall we say?

You know, This was more "Inside Edition" than the Koppel "Nightline" of old.

KURTZ: Lisa, you like to do...

BLOOM: Don't knock those crime and justice stories. Come on. Those are important stories.

KURTZ: All right. We don't want to slight what Lisa does for a living.

Dana Milbank, the reason I'm skeptical is that ABC tried this maneuver once before back in 2002. They tried to lure Letterman away from CBS, and "Nightline" would have gone bye-bye.

MILBANK: Well, it seems like the writing has been on the wall for some time here. And everybody at ABC News, I think, is legitimately worried that their parent company is an entertainment company. And they seem to have what I think is a false dichotomy.

You have news on one hand and entertainment on the other, as if news can't be entertaining in any way. That it has to be deadly serious. And I think they've got themselves like many television outlets into that sort of a trap. So in the long run, you know, it's a dangerous spot to be in.

KURTZ: All right. Now, there was a debate the other day -- and I'm used to seeing people go at it on television and really take each other on, but on MSNBC's "Hardball," Dick Armey, the former House Republican leader, was debating Joan Walsh, the editor of Salon.com, talking about Republicans and the stimulus, and he kept telling her to give it a rest.

And then this happened...

JOAN WALSH, SALON.COM: Rush Limbaugh is making ridiculous statements, and Republicans are crawling to him and groveling. That's the state of our economy and our world right now, Representative Armey, and it's sad.

DICK ARMEY, FMR. HOUSE MAJORITY LEADER: I am so damn glad that you could never be my wife, because I surely wouldn't have to listen to that babble from you every day. That is what I'm talking about.

WALSH: Well, boy, that makes two of us, sir. That was really an outstanding comment.

KURTZ: Lisa Bloom, "I sure am glad I'm not married to you"?

BLOOM: You have got to be kidding me? That is one of the more sexist remarks I've heard, and I've been debating people on the air for a long time.

I mean, do men really all think that women are just dying to be married to them? Do they all think about us as sex objects, or in the case of Dick Armey, I guess, nonsexual objects, if he's imagining being married to her? I mean, does he have no arguments on the merits and that's what he has to resort to? KURTZ: Well, you know, it was really one step above, "Joan, you ignorant slut." And it bothers me that nobody pays a penalty for this. I'm sure he'll be back on all the shows within a week or two.

All right. Lisa Bloom, Phil Rosenthal, Dana Milbank, here in Washington, thanks very much for joining us.

BLOOM: Thank you.

KURTZ: Coming up in the second half of RELIABLE SOURCES, "The New York Times" gets the president's attention, and Wall Street feels the heat. Is he so-called liberal press back on top in Barack Obama's Washington?

Plus, after less than two weeks and one party line vote, are the media rushing to declare an end to "bipartisanship?"

And later, we'll meet the Super Bowl sportswriter who's covering a game today that hits close to home, very close to home.

KURTZ: "The New York Times" was not exactly President Bush's favorite newspaper. In fact, he denounced it from time to time for disclosing national security secrets. But President Obama not only makes a point of perusing the morning papers, he sometimes acts on what's in there, if this week is any indication.

It was a front page "New York Times" piece on Thursday that aroused the new president's ire and prompted his first attack on a unpopular target. The Times reporting that Wall Street firms, many of which had to be rescued by the taxpayers, had paid out huge bonuses last year, saying some bankers took home millions last year even as their employers lost billions. Obama went before the cameras hours later, and his broadside led all the network newscasts.

OBAMA: When I saw an article today indicating that Wall Street bankers had given themselves $20 billion worth of bonuses, the same amount of bonuses as they gave themselves in 2004, that is the height of irresponsibility. It is shameful.

KATIE COURIC, CBS NEWS: In the second week of his presidency, we found out what it takes to get Barack Obama angry.

CHARLES GIBSON, ABC NEWS: President Obama lashes out at the billions in bonuses paid on Wall Street.

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC NEWS: "Shameful." That's how President Obama labels those Wall Street types.

KURTZ: So are the media lining up behind this anti-Wall Street crusade and the new president's economic agenda?

Joining us now here in Washington, Karen Tumulty, national political correspondent for "TIME" magazine. In Chicago, Roland Martin, syndicated columnist, radio host, and CNN political analyst. And in Seattle, Michael Medved, host of "The Michael Medved Radio Show" on the Salem Radio Network, and author of "The New York Times" best-seller "The Ten Big Lies About America."

Michael Medved, does this mean "The New York Times" has the ability to put issues on the national agenda the way that Fox News might have in the Bush administration?

MICHAEL MEDVED, RADIO TALK SHOW HOST: Well, "The New York Times" has always had the ability to put issues on the national agenda. The problem here, it seems to me, is that what President Obama is doing is, to some extent, crying wolf.

If he is going to talk about this article and use words like "shameful" and show this level of indignation, the one thing that the article didn't acknowledge that "The Wall Street Journal" pointed out is that these bonuses, this $18 billion of bonuses, included bonuses for secretaries, for janitors. The average bonus for all of these Wall Street people was $112,000, which included the significant pay that many people get who work on Wall Street who don't get paid during the year, who only get paid a bonus at the end. And the bonuses were significantly down from 2006 and 2007.

KURTZ: Right. Well, let me come back to the broader question with Roland Martin.

Do you see liberal editorial pages and liberal pundits and liberal talk radio getting more of a hearing in the Obama White House?

ROLAND MARTIN, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: OK. Well, first of all, you're going to have people who are going to get hearings regardless. And so, sure, a change in administration, you will have a president who is a Democrat, who will likely have more conversations and appeal to those of that particular leaning. But look, I'm just glad to have of a president who actually reads the newspapers. It might help our business out.

And so I don't see a problem with this in terms of somebody acknowledging this kind of reporting. And so, it's great that President Obama's actually doing that. But again, what is amazing about this is you have a president who wants to be -- who is a person of the people, who wants to speak to the people, and who is saying -- who is acknowledging something that we're all ticked off as well.

And so, Mike, I get secretaries and posts like that, but also, when you're coming to the federal government for money, it's a little hard to be paying bonuses when we're trying to bail you out.

KURTZ: Let me get to Karen Tumulty. This is a free shot, Karen. Everybody hates Wall Street executives, Obama gets favorable headlines, we're talking about it, but the bonuses which have already been paid out, you know, are not going to be touched.

KAREN TUMULTY, "TIME": Yes, but I think that what the White House is doing here, I don't think that was a liberal or a conservative story. I think that was a story that taps into, as Roland suggested, a real wave of populist anger that is out there in the country. And I think Obama -- the president was just getting ahead of where most people already are. They may not know what a hedge fund does or what -- why the credit markets are seizing up, but they do know that at this time, people shouldn't be putting $80,000 rugs in their offices, and that maybe they could fly commercial instead of their corporate jets.

KURTZ: Right.

TUMULTY: And that's really what he was catching on to.

KURTZ: Let me play some tape about whether we are or not in Washington entering a era of bipartisanship given the fact that the House Republicans unanimously voted against the president's stimulus package.

COURIC: It was a big disappointment for the president because, despite a personal visit to Capitol Hill to woo Republicans, not a single one of them voted for the bill.

GIBSON: Not one Republican voted for it, turning a cold shoulder to the president's appeal for bipartisan support.

SEAN HANNITY, FOX NEWS: The only bipartisanship in Washington tonight is an opposition to the president's stimulus package.

KURTZ: So Michael Medved, is this the media narrative, as you see it? Obama invited Republicans over to the White House for cocktails, he's having some for the Super Bowl today. He treated them with respect. He dropped a couple of liberal provisions they didn't like. And they wouldn't provide the administration with a single lousy vote.

MEDVED: I think that is part of the narrative. I mean, it also may be more intense if President Obama goes ahead and appoints Senator Judd Gregg, a Republican, as his commerce secretary, which has been widely rumored.

The point about all of this is that on the Republican side, people feel very, very encouraged by this House vote, because what it suggests, along with the selection of Michael Steele as the new RNC chair, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, it suggests that the Republicans are finding a coherent voice and taking a more clear stand against excessive government spending.

KURTZ: But Michael, is that the way it's being portrayed in the press? Or is it being portrayed in the press that they are doing this for political and partisan reasons?

MEDVED: I think you get a little bit of both, frankly. And I do think that the media have done a decent job in showing that Republican spirits are rallied on the side of their House leadership, which has opposed the size of this stimulus package...

KURTZ: Let me go to Roland.

MEDVED: ... called the porkulus package.

MARTIN: No, no. This is what happens when you have folks in a small nucleus who somehow think that, oh, we're already getting along now. Nobody in the real world thought that somehow, even with President Obama coming in, Republicans are going to say, hey, let's all get along. What Obama was doing was having the outreach to them, but outreach does not change ideological differences.

KURTZ: Well, just a minute, Roland. So you're saying...

MARTIN: If this was a Republican president...

KURTZ: Hold on, Roland. Hold on. You're saying that the media weren't really in the real world? Because I read lots and lots of articles and saw lots and lots of television segments about how Obama was going to try to govern in a post-partisan fashion. Were we detached from reality?

MARTIN: Yes. And that line is correct in terms of how he's going to try to govern. But the difference this week showed an ideological difference. That is, he was saying 40 percent of the stimulus package, tax cuts. Republicans were saying, that's our deal, we want 70, 80, 90.

And so I never thought for a second that somehow Republicans were going to be coming in droves, because ideologically, they are thinking differently than how he thinks when it comes to the package.

KURTZ: All right.

MARTIN: The difference is he's outreaching to them, something President Bush didn't even do to his own party.

KURTZ: Let me ask you, Karen Tumulty, about the passage of the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This was a woman who was a Goodyear worker who found out that men in the company were making more than women, she sued. Michelle Obama was at the ceremony.

What I didn't see in a lot of the coverage -- and I watched CNN and ABC and CBS and Fox -- is the fact -- emphasize the fact that all but three House Republicans voted against this. I mean, it's a wonderful thing. Only NBC interviewed a conservative that said, wait, this is going to lead to more lawsuits, perhaps more frivolous lawsuits, and it's not going to produce fewer (ph) jobs for women.

So it seemed like almost the coverage was one-sided that this was a great thing.

TUMULTY: Well, I think because it was something that was the first real tangible evidence we've seen of something getting through as a result of having a different president and a different Congress. And so that was the significance. And also, once again, sort of like these Wall Street bonuses, you had a really compelling story right there. It was very shrewd of the White House to make sure that Lilly Ledbetter herself was right in the middle of that picture.

KURTZ: But does that justify not mentioning the fact that there are arguments against it?

TUMULTY: Well, I think that, you know, again, this is not like this is a new piece of legislation. We heard the arguments against it last year, as they were -- you know, this has been fought over for years.

KURTZ: Let me ask you about Tom Daschle, because the front page of "The New York Times," "The Washington Post" today -- it's the lead story, in fact, at "The Washington Post" -- talking about the $140,000 in back taxes he had to pay after he didn't realize, he said, that he owed something to the IRS for having a car and driver. And "The New York Times" reporting that he knew this in June and didn't tell the Obama people until after he had been nominated.

A lot of people said the press was going to go on easy on the Obama administration. Isn't this evidence that that's not necessarily happening?

TUMULTY: Well, I think that this narrative, coming the day after the -- two days after the president denouncing Wall Street bonuses, today's stories are more about cluelessness. Yesterday's were just carelessness. I think the story line is getting worse, and I don't think that Senator Daschle has seen the end of this hole that he's dug for himself.

KURTZ: All right.

MARTIN: But Howie, we've got to add, a typical response is also based upon the opposition. When you have Republicans themselves saying, you know what? Yes, it's a bad thing, but we still support Daschle, that's what makes a difference. When you have an opposition that's really going after a person, that changes the story narrative.

KURTZ: Well, we'll see if the narrative changes.

I want to get to Rush Limbaugh, because he had been much in the news these past couple of weeks. And he's had a fine time on his radio show saying he hopes Obama fails because he doesn't agree with what President Obama wants to do.

So a Republican congressman from Georgia named Phil Gingrey tells the Politico that it's easy for people like Rush and Sean Hannity to throw bricks, but he believes in what the GOP leadership on the Hill is doing. And then he thinks better of it and goes on Rush's show.

Let's play that.

REP. PHIL GINGREY (R), GEORGIA: I want to express to you and all of your listeners, my very sincere regret for those comments I made yesterday to Politico. I regret those stupid comments.

KURTZ: Michael Medved, he didn't even say anything particularly harsh about Rush. So should the media now regard Rush Limbaugh as the de facto leader of the Republican Party?

MEDVED: Well, they did that back in 1992. You remember that when Bill Clinton came in, in '93, actually, and they had Rush Limbaugh on the cover of "National Review" as leader of the opposition. Look, right now, I think Rush is speaking for a lot of conservatives.

And just to go back to what Karen was saying, I think the Lilly Ledbetter thing, the idea that people know the arguments against it, it's very different from the Wall Street bonuses. No one was defending, really, the Wall Street bonuses. But there are people who are worried about excessive lawsuits. This is a big issue for conservatives, the idea of tort reform, the idea of punishing business with all kinds of superfluous lawsuits. And the fact that this was just treated as a triumph for human rights...

KURTZ: Go ahead, Roland.

MEDVED: Michael, it would be nice if these same conservatives actually cared about women being paid the same amount as men. I mean, that's kind of like a nice thing here. And so I get the lawsuit thing. You pay them up front, the right amount of money.-

KURTZ: OK. I don't want to debate the issue. And we're running out of time. We're running out of time.

MARTIN: Just want to put that out there.

KURTZ: My point is, tell both sides and let people make up their minds whether it's a good idea.

MEDVED: Absolutely.

KURTZ: I've got 20 seconds, Karen. Did the president make a tactical error by talking about Rush Limbaugh to Republican leaders, and thereby kind of elevating him to the forefront of the debate?

TUMULTY: I'm not sure, because I think with Rush Limbaugh, he can also set up a straw man Republican so that he can go and try and deal with the actual elected officials.

KURTZ: All right. Karen Tumulty, Michael Medved, Roland Martin, thanks for joining us.

Now, before we go to break, author Bernard Goldberg was scheduled to appear on this program to talk about his new book on media bias until Friday, when he abruptly canceled without explanation, even though his people had approached us. Now, I assume Bernie respects my work. His book about the press supposedly being in the tank for Obama quotes me and my articles several times. There it is.

He's been out flogging the thing with Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, people who agree with him. Do you think maybe he doesn't want to leave his pals behind and face some skeptical questioning?

Come on, Bernie. We'll have a good debate on this issue, one-on- one, without bias. You're welcome here any time.

And still to come, doing double duty. Larry Fitzgerald Sr. will spend today covering the Super Bowl, and he says he won't be cheering for his superstar son on the Arizona Cardinals, at least during the game. That's next.

KURTZ: Hundreds of journalists, maybe thousands, will be in Tampa for tonight's Super Bowl showdown. But no one will have a more personal connection to the game than Larry Fitzgerald. When the Arizona Cardinals and Pittsburgh Steelers face off tonight, this longtime sportswriter for the weekly "Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder" will have his eye on one player in particular, Cardinals star Larry Fitzgerald Jr.

OK, the elder Mr. Fitzgerald could be forgiven for jumping up and down for his son, but that's not what he had in mind. I spoke to Larry Fitzgerald Sr. earlier from Tampa.

KURTZ: Larry Fitzgerald, welcome.

FITZGERALD: Thank you. How are you?

KURTZ: Doing well.

Now, you say that, even though your son is the most exciting player on that field tonight, you're going to go to that press room, you're going to that press box. You're going to -- not going to root for him. You're going to be an objective sportswriter.

And my reaction is, "Huh? How is that possible?"

FITZGERALD: Well, it's possible, because this is not the first game I've seen Larry play. I've been basically watching all of his games, you know, for the last six years.

Obviously, I raised him, my wife and I. And we've seen him play high school, pee wee football. And I've been in the business now for 30 years as a sportswriter and talk show host and a little television, so, I've been at this for a while. I understand how it works. I've covered superstars and super teams before.

And it's unique...

KURTZ: Yes, but you haven't covered a superstar who has your name. He has your name. He's your kid.

FITZGERALD: Yes, that's true.

KURTZ: So I admire your dedication to your craft, but it's got to be kind of an awkward position to be in. I mean, you obviously would like to root for your son.

FITZGERALD: Well, it is a -- I guess you could use that word, "awkward." I'd rather not use that word. I would like to use the word "unique."

I think it's a unique American story, that a father who's a, you know, a hardworking journalist, from a career standpoint, just happened to have the fortune of having a wonderful son. Carol and I, you know, believed in raising him in a way that he would respect people, that he would go about treating people like he wanted to be treated himself. And he just happened to be a very good football player who got better and better. And here he is in the Super Bowl.

KURTZ: Amazing.

Now, let me read something you wrote just last week in the "Minnesota Spokesman-Recorder."

You wrote that, speaking of this particular Cardinal, "No bird -- or player, for that matter -- has played better in these playoffs than Fitzgerald. The remarkable 25-year-old receiver has been on fire in the playoffs. In many ways, he has literally carried his team on his back, making incredible acrobatic catches and big plays."

A little parental pride in those words?

FITZGERALD: Really. And I have to be real careful with those, because, as I mentioned, I've covered Michael Jordan, Magic Johnson, Muhammad Ali. I've seen great, great athletes accomplish tremendous things. And to see what he did that day and what he's done in these playoffs, I thought that those words were right on point.

KURTZ: Well, he has been getting a lot of praise from sportswriters, not just from ones related to him.

But "Slate" Magazine took issue with some of the columns that you wrote about Larry Fitzgerald, Jr. You said -- they said -- the magazine said, "This was less a work of journalism than a proud parent's scrapbook."

Does that bother you at all?

FITZGERALD: I've never -- I haven't seen it. I have never been one who goes about worrying about negatives. If I believed the negatives, Barack Obama wouldn't be president of the United States today.

I am one who believes in positives and going about doing things that way. And that's the way I've raised my sons. And that's the way my wife and I believe is the way to get it done.

And so, people have their right to their opinions. Obviously, he's trying to make headlines off of the Super Bowl, because I doubt if they're even here.

KURTZ: Now, you did write a column the other day about the unique situation that you find yourself in. But generally when you write about the exploits of this incredible, acrobatic 25-year-old receiver, you don't put in the column that this is, indeed, your son.

Why not just lay it out there?

FITZGERALD: Well, because the game is bigger than my son. Larry is in the Super Bowl. But the Super Bowl, last I heard, this is the 43rd edition. So, he's fortunate to be in the position that he's in as a terrific player who's really red hot and playing well to get his team in a position to win a world championship.

So, I like to look at it for what it is. This is a world championship, and I'm here to cover it. And I'm excited about it. I'm experienced at it. I know what I'm doing, and I'm looking forward to it.

KURTZ: Now, let me ask you this. Do you -- have you given your son any advice over the years -- since you are in the business, as he has become more prominent, as he had to deal with reporters -- about how to deal with the press and maybe not over-answer questions or go for story lines that are not going to be particularly helpful to him?

FITZGERALD: Well, one thing that Larry learned, and also my younger son, Marcus, is that I've taken them to hundreds of radio shows that I have hosted and produced. And they've seen how I work and how I interview individuals. And then after it, I would talk to them about what I did, what they liked, what they didn't like, and then I would advise them on what I thought was important. And that is, you have to respect what we do.

We're conduits between the fans and the team, and we have a job to do. And some of those questions might be pointed. Some of them might not be what you want to hear. But you have the ability as a person answering those questions to respond to what you choose to.

And so, that's what I've advised them to do. And Larry I think has done a terrific job in doing that.

KURTZ: Good advice for any athlete or anyone in the public eye.

All right. Larry Fitzgerald, have a super game. Thanks very much for joining us.

FITZGERALD: Thanks for having me.

KURTZ: Hmm. I wonder what he'll do if Larry Fitzgerald Jr. drops the game-winning catch.

All right.

After the break, heat-seeking headline, how "The New York Post" needed just two words to take down a $50 million jet.

KURTZ: Millions of words have been published in broadcast about Wall Street excess and massive zillion-dollar loans and bank bailouts, and it can get very abstract. But sometimes all it takes is a single headline to get people really ticked off.

KURTZ (voice-over): "The New York Post" put this story into orbit with two words: "Plane Crazy!" The people who run Citigroup, the banking giant that fell so far, it needed a $45 billion rescue from the taxpayers, apparently still think it's business as usual. They thought nothing of buying a $50 million corporate jet, a 12-seat French plane, to fly its exclusives around in splendor. When New York's feisty tabloid called that "Just Plane Despicable," the rest of the media followed suit.

COURIC: Citigroup reportedly plans to offer top executives a pricey perk. The company, which got a $45 billion taxpayer bailout, is set to be moving ahead with plans to buy a $50 million corporate jet.

GIBSON: The economically troubled Citigroup said today it intends to go ahead with plans to buy a $50 million jet, despite objections from the White House and Congress.

RICK SANCHEZ, CNN: At a time with tens of thousands of Americans are losing their jobs, and when those same Americans are having to bail out huge corporations for the good of the whole, what have we learned today?

DAVID SHUSTER, MSNBC: When you fire employees and take government bailout money, acquiring an expensive brand new corporate jet is hypocrisy and it's wrong.

GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, FOX NEWS: This will make you furious. The bank Citigroup that received $45 billion of your money for a financial bailout is now reportedly buying $50 million private corporate jet.

KURTZ: It turns out not even Citigroup's airheads, as The Post called them, could stand up to that kind of media mockery, not with federal authorities helping to keep their company afloat. Especially when an aide to Barack Obama called Citigroup and said, as ABC news reported, "Fix it." LOU DOBBS, CNN: Well, an example tonight of what we on this broadcast call a gut check. Citigroup having a change of heart on its new $50 million corporate jet.

KURTZ: There are other examples.

John Thain, who ran Merrill Lynch into the ground before it was swallowed by Bank of America, thought it was crucial to redecorate his office with, among other things, an $87,000 rug and a $1,400 trash can. The press discovered this as the company was forcing him out.

KURTZ: There was sort of a gloating "New York Post" headline after the Citigroup plane fiasco -- "Grounded." Sometimes a newspaper just strikes a nerve, and the most arrogant high flyers can be brought down to Earth.

Up next, a great TV story about the new president just happened to be in the morning paper.

And John King rejoins us in a moment.

KURTZ: "The New York Times" reported the other day that President Obama starts his day with a workout, has breakfast with his family, reads several newspapers, has turned up the thermostat in the Oval Office, and loosened the dress code. Short sleeves are now allowed.

And on that night's network newscasts -- what do you know?

JAKE TAPPER, ABC NEWS (voice-over): The president is joined by his kids for a healthier breakfast in the residence. He reads the newspapers. America's first Hawaiian-born president keeps the Oval Office warm.

WILLIAMS: Will it mean a less formal White House than it was under 43?

The new president, we're told, took off his jacket for those early photos in the Oval Office because it was shot in there.

KURTZ: Not a huge scoop, though Brian Williams credited The Times. But I've always wondered, what would television news do if there were no newspapers?

John King rejoins us now.

John, you're a former AP reporter. I'm sure you had a few occasions when some of your exclusives wound up on TV without an iota of credit.

KING: That did happen sometimes back in the day, Howie, as you know. But I want to say for the record, the first place Americans saw the picture of Barack Obama on television in those short sleeves was in "THE SITUATION ROOM," right here, because I had covered the Bush White House, and when they released that White House photo, I e-mailed Wolf, and Wolf said, "Come on the show," and we had it on "THE SITUATION ROOM."

So, in this case, TV was a little ahead of the newspapers. But it is a striking change.

He's got young kids. His intelligence briefing is a little later every day than George W. Bush's for just that reason. And he has short sleeves in the White House. Bush would not tolerate that. You wore a suit and jacket, even sitting in the Oval Office.

If you were in the Oval Office, Bush didn't even take his jacket off. Always at the desk. A little bit of change and what you might say a cultural change, as well as a philosophical change.

KURTZ: Television news does move fast. Newspapers still do some good digging though.

KING: Amen. They do. And that's why we need them.

There's trouble in the newspaper business right now. When you travel the country, you see it. And it is a bad, bad thing. We need to find a way, Howie. It's your job. Bring it back.

KURTZ: All right. Thanks very much.

KING: And thanks, Howie.

We'll see you next Sunday for your critical look at the media, "Reliable Sources."


text:
Through The Wire: Reuters Layoffs
Posted: 1/25/2013  |  By: Kara Bloomgarden-Smoke | New York Observer
Last week was a bleak one at Thomson Reuters, the financial news and wire service giant. According to sources, as many as 3,000 people were let go, out of approximately 50,000 employees around the globe. Most of the layoffs came from the financial sector—the sales, training and analysts’ divisions—but some were on the editorial side.


text:
Connect With TAGs

You may have heard about AACTE’s Topical Action Groups (TAGs), a valuable member program that provides an AACTE-sponsored forum for peers to work together on a common professional topic of interest.

Now we’ve made it even easier for you to connect with TAGs! Simply click here to identify your areas of interest and expertise through AACTE’s Profile Manager—it won’t take more than a minute.

Help us help you find other AACTE members around the country who share your interests and connect with them through the TAG program.

Questions? Contact me, the AACTE TAG staff administrator, at kmurray@aacte.org or (202) 478-4598.

ShareTweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail this to someone

Tags: , ,

Kim Murray

TAG Administrator, AACTE

Leave a comment

I have read and accept the Terms of Use policy.

On Twitter

Follow Us


text:
Durban Conference delivers Breakthrough for Climate

Closing moments of COP17/CMP7 as COP President Maite Nkoana-Mashabane receives a standing ovation © IISD RSClosing moments of COP17/CMP7 as COP President Maite Nkoana-Mashabane receives a standing ovation © IISD RS

The European Union welcomes the agreement reached at the UN climate conference in Durban as a historic breakthrough in the fight against climate change.

After two weeks of negotiations, the 195 Parties to the UN climate change convention agreed on a roadmap, proposed by the EU, for drawing up a legal framework by 2015 for climate action by all countries. The Durban conference also agreed that there will be a second commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol, made operational the new Green Climate Fund for developing countries and approved a series of measures which build on the progress made at last year’s Cancun conference.

Connie Hedegaard, European Commissioner for Climate Action, said:

"EU’s strategy worked. When many parties after Cancun said that Durban could only implement decisions taken in Copenhagen and Cancun, the EU wanted more ambition. And got more. We would not take a new Kyoto period unless we got in return a roadmap for the future where all countries must commit. Where the Kyoto divides the world into two categories, we will now get a system that reflects the reality of the today’s mutually interdependent world. And as we are interdependent, what we promise to do must have the same legal weight. With the agreement on a roadmap towards a new legal framework by 2015 that will involve all countries in combating climate change, the EU has achieved its key goal for the Durban climate conference’’.

Polish Environment Minister Marcin Korolec, whose country currently holds the presidency of the Council of the European Union, said:

"This is an moment comparable only to, if not surpassing, the success of COP1 from 1995, when the Berlin Mandate was established, which led to the creation and adoption of the only legally binding international agreement to combat climate change – the Kyoto Protocol. Today, we adopted a Durban Platform, which will lead us to a legally binding agreement being completed by the year 2015 to engage all parties. A lot of hard work has gone to achieve this. That is significant success of the Polish presidency of the EU Council together with European Commission, the European Union and the global community as a whole’’

Read more about the Durban Conference:


text:
File:Campaign Lebanon BoP 03.png

From EECH Central
Jump to: navigation, search
Campaign_Lebanon_BoP_03.png(643 × 418 pixels, file size: 60 KB, MIME type: image/png)

File history

Click on a date/time to view the file as it appeared at that time.

current17:31, 29 January 2013Thumbnail for version as of 17:31, 29 January 2013643 × 418 (60 KB)Maintenance script (Talk)Importing image file
  • You cannot overwrite this file.

The following page links to this file:


text:
Medical Questions > Womens Health > Fertility Forum

is there any chance for me to get twins?

Must Read
If you're experiencing difficult conceiving, you are not alone. Learn how doctors define infertility and how infertility affects both men and women here....
Many things cause fertility problems. Learn common causes of infertility for men and women here, plus info on factors that affect the ability to conceive....
Sometimes fertility do not manifest any symptoms. Other times there are definite signs. Learn to identify possible problems and know when to ask for help....
i am one of the twin
is there any chance for me to get twins
and one more thing i am not getting regular periods also
Did you find this post helpful?
Tags: periods
Quick Reply


text:
Medical Questions > Mens Health > Testicles Forum

testicles ache after Chlamydia

Must Read
Chlamydia is the most common STD in the U.S. Learn how this potentially serious sexually transmitted disease is spread so you can protect yourself....
Learn more about the germ that causes this sexually transmitted infection (STI) and evaluate whether or not you are at high risk of getting chlamydia here....
Left untreated, chlamydia can cause serious complications such as infertility. Learn to identify signs and symptoms of chlamydia here to prevent illness....
I thank you for any help you can give me in advance!
First, I should say Im male, 27 years old, first std.
I contracted Chlamydia and had it diagnosed around 2 months later. I had some discharge and aching testicles. The doctors gave me 2 sets of antibiotics which lasted one week- unfortunately, this was in thailand and the pills they gave didnt have any official name (in thai or english)- just "antibiotics" so I dont actually know what they gave me (but they seemed professional!). I finished the pills but continued to have some symptoms, particularly aching testicles. A few days later because of this I went to another doctor, who gave me oflocee (ofloxacin) tablets and flagyl tablets. My testicles continued to hurt, so I went to another doctor who gave me more ofloxacin, celebrex (celecoxib), and bronmycin (doxycycline). Ive now finished off everything except the ofloxacin and still my testicles ache and I think I may have some discharge although Im not quite sure.
I just went to a pharmacy and bought some "doxycycline hyclate (apo-doxy)". My first question: is it a good idea to take this? The problem is that Im in vietnam for tet festival and only emergency wards are open so I dont think I can easily find a doctor for 5 days.
My second question is- should I stop worrying until all my pills are finished? How serious is this- should I go to an emergency ward and try to find a doctor?
And third, what is wrong with me? Do you think this is still chlamydia? Or is it likely to be urethritis, epididymitis, or prostatitis?
Lastly, what is the risk of infertility from all this? Is it a tiny risk- like the risk of being hit by a bus, or is it something more serious and worth checking out at a fertility clinic. Im quite terrified of this...
Thanks very much!
Did you find this post helpful?
First Helper davechristope


text:
Marvel vs. Capcom 3 in the Works

17 Apr, 2010

Image not official representation of any products

A rumor so close to confirmation that gamers are already trying to pre-order, PlanetXbox reports that a sequel to the dietetic arcade tag-team fighter Marvel vs. Capcom franchise is in the works. The rumors are coming in fresh from Capcom’s Captivate showcase event in Hawaii, and given the company’s dedication to re-invigorating their classics, these rumors have been taken with much more than a grain of salt. Details are tightly lidded at this point, but a media reveal is expected early next week.

Confirmed details (as of yet):

- Returning Characters: Storm, Hulk, Wolverine, Spider-Man, and Magneto

- Developers claim that gamers will be “blown out of the water” with the amount of characters on disc, but will still feature “unlockables”

- While remaining 2-D, the style will hover somewhere between Marvel vs. Capcom 2 and Street Fighter IV

- Expected Q4 release date (on disc,) for the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3

- 1080p resolution will be supported

- The game can be taken for a ride at this year’s E3

About the author

Gavin Greene
Gavin Greene

Elder Geek installed GavinGreene.exe into its News editorial directory in May of 2009. The resulting mobile humanoid server has developed frighteningly realistic obsessions with RPGs, Adventure Games, and Industry Politics, and may be the harbinger of the inevitable singularity. Follow him on Twitter @ElderGeekGav

Related Posts

1 Comment

  1. Keck282
    April 18, 2010

    I hope the only thing that is 3d in the game is the backgrounds. I stand that the characters should be 2D sprites, and the backgrounds can be whatever they want.


text:
Elevate Difference

Reviews of Jennifer Ashton Avery

The Body Scoop for Girls: A Straight-Talk Guide to a Healthy, Beautiful You

I am skeptical of books that aim to educate teens about all things related to one’s adolescent body, but The Body Scoop for Girls exceeded my expectations. Jennifer Ashton is a gynecologist and CBS medical correspondent who has written a user-friendly manual for young girls I wish I had read when I was entering the tricky terrain we call puberty.


text:
DLR-Logo -> http://www.dlr.de
DLR Portal Home | Imprint | Contact | Deutsch
Fontsize: [-] Text [+]

Non-chemical, non-nuclear advanced propulsion for space applications: Panorama and Roadmap

Bérend, Nicolas and Calabro, Max and Božić, Dr. Ognjan and Bonnal, Cristophe and Matloff, Dr. Gregory. L. and Valentian, Dominique (2009) Non-chemical, non-nuclear advanced propulsion for space applications: Panorama and Roadmap. 60th International Astronautical Congress, 12.-16. Okt. 2009, Daejon, Korea.

[img] PDF - Registered users only - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader

This paper has been prepared in the frame of IAA Advanced Propulsion Working Group (IAA Study Group #3.1) and is focused on non-chemical, non-nuclear propulsion concepts for space application, excluding Breakthrough-Propulsion Physics concepts. Three main families of propulsion are considered in this: launch-assist catapult systems using Lorentz Rail Accelerator, beamed energy propulsion (Laser/Microwave Thermal and Electric Propulsion) and beamed momentum propulsion (solar and electromagnetic sails). The paper reminds the principle and physics behind each concept and variants and gives an updated view of the current Technological Readiness Level, including recent technological developments as well as ground and in-flight experimentations. The advantages, drawbacks and positioning of these concepts with regards to other propulsion solutions are discussed. Finally, a roadmap is proposed, including the next steps identified to increase the Technical Readiness Level and pave the way to operational space applications.

Document Type:Conference or Workshop Item (Speech, Paper)
Title:Non-chemical, non-nuclear advanced propulsion for space applications: Panorama and Roadmap
AuthorsInstitution or Email of Authors
Bérend, NicolasOnera, Châtillon, France, nicolas.berend@onera.fr
Calabro, MaxThe Inner Arch, Poissy, France, Max.calabro@innerarch.eu
Božić, Dr. OgnjanDLR, Braunschweig, Germany, ognjan.bozic@dlr.de
Bonnal, CristopheCnes, Evry, France, christophe.bonnal@cnes.fr
Matloff, Dr. Gregory. L.New York City College of Technology, Brooklyn, NY, United States, gregmat@hotmail.com
Valentian, DominiqueSnecma, Vernon, France, dominique.valentian@snecma.fr
Date:October 2009
Keywords:non-chemical, non-nuclear, propulsion, space application
Event Title:60th International Astronautical Congress
Event Location:Daejon, Korea
Event Type:international Conference
Event Dates:12.-16. Okt. 2009
Organizer:International Astronautic Federation
HGF - Research field:Aeronautics, Space and Transport (old)
HGF - Program:Space (old)
HGF - Program Themes:W - no assignement
DLR - Research area:Space
DLR - Program:W - no assignement
DLR - Research theme (Project):W -- no assignement (old)
Location: Braunschweig , Göttingen
Institutes and Institutions:Institute of Aerodynamics and Flow Technology > Spacecraft
Deposited By: Dr.-Ing. Ognjan Bozic
Deposited On:10 Feb 2010 11:22
Last Modified:12 Dec 2013 20:53

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Help & Contact
electronic library is running on EPrints 3.3.12
Copyright © 2008-2012 German Aerospace Center (DLR). All rights reserved.


text:
New Reviews in Cyberculture Studies

March 7, 2004 in Reviews

This month’s new books reviews at RCCS are: David E. Nye’s America as Second Creation: Technology and Narratives of New Beginnings reviewed by Craig McFarlane; Jeffrey Sconce’s Haunted Media: Electronic Presence From Telegraphy to Television reviewed by Dougie Bicket; Andy Clark’s Natural Born Cyborgs: Minds, Technologies, and the Future of Human Intelligence reviewed by Steven A. Benko; Hubert L. Dreyfus’s On the Internet reviewed by Geoffrey Cain; Chong-En Bai & Chi-Wa Yuen’s Technology and the New Economy reviewed by Suely Fragoso; and Geert Lovink’s Uncanny Networks: Dialogues with the Virtual Intelligentsia reviewed by Ted Kafala.


text:
Elpub : Digital Library : ELPUB References

Reference c79b

in paper Find in CUMINCAD Martin, Celeste; Jonathan Aitken (2012) Evolving Definitions of Authorship in Ebook Design
authors Find in ELPUB R. Barthes
year 1977
title Find in ELPUB Work to Text, Image Music Text, Heath S (translator)
source Fontana Press, London
last changed 2012/07/16 11:48
modify the informationdelete entire recordview how record was changing over timeHOMELOGIN (you are user _anon_70850 from group guest) Powered by SciX Open Publishing Services 1.002


text:
Jump to Navigation
Jump to Content

State v. Dayton Malleable, Inc.

Citation: 10 ELR 20677
No. No. 78-694, 13 ERC 2189/(Ohio Ct. C.P., 10/10/1979)

A trial judge assesses a $493,500 civil penalty against Dayton Malleable, Inc. (DMI) for five admitted violations of a national pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit issued pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act. The company was sued by the State of Ohio for violating § 6111.07(A) of the Ohio Revised Code in failing to meet scheduled deadlines for construction of waste water treatment facilities at its Ironton, Ohio plant, which caused dissolved iron discharges into the Ohio River in excess of permitted levels over a period of 714 days. The court first finds that impossibility and substantial compliance are invalid defenses since intent is not a necessary element of violations of police regulations. Applying the United States Environmental Protection Agency's guidelines for assessing noncompliance penalties, the court determines that a fine of $50 per day should be levied to reflect the environmental damage done by defendant's discharges. The court holds that the impossibility of quantifying the harm to health and the environment from DMI's violations does not bar the assessment of such a penalty. In computing the economic benefit accruing to DMI as a result of noncompliance, the court uses the company's actual rate of return on equity to reach a figure of $8,000. The court does not allow DMI to deduct money spent rehabilitating old facilities for use pending completion of the new plant since compliance with the NPDES limitations would have rendered such expenditures unnecessary. Noting the company's lack of diligence in reaching compliance, the court fines it $750 per day for "recalcitrance." Finally, the court lessens the total penalty of $578,000 by $84,500 due to the existence of extenuating circumstances that were beyond DMI's control. Concluding that the final total of $493,500 plus costs is not excessive for as large a company as DMI, the court observes that if the penalty is to serve deterrent and exemplary functions, it must be assessed in proportion to the profits of the parent company rather than those of the division being challenged in a particular suit.

Counsel for Plaintiff
William J. Brown, Attorney General; Martha E. Horvitz, E. Dennis Muchnicki, Ass't Attorney General, Environmental Law Section
30 E. Broad St., Columbus OH 43215
(614) 466-3376

Counsel for Defendant
Charles P. Freiburger, Richard F. Taps
Bricker, Evatt, Barton & Eckler
100 E. Broad St., Columbus OH 43215
(614) 227-2300