A Nibble - A Bite - or a Meal!

In Iraq, Jubilation as U.S. Combat Troops Withdraw From Cities

straightarrow — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:17:33 +0000

By Ernesto Londoño

Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

BAGHDAD, June 30 — This is no longer America’s war.

BAGHDAD, June 30 — At least 26 people were killed Tuesday in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, marring a national holiday declared to celebrate the departure of U.S. combat troops from Iraqi cities after six years and three months of war.

The government staged a military parade to mark “National Sovereignty Day,” and Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki made a triumphant, nationally televised address.

“This day, which we consider a national celebration, is an achievement made by all Iraqis,” said Maliki, speaking before the explosion at a market in Kirkuk, which damaged at least 30 shops. “Those who think that Iraqis are unable to defend their country are committing a fatal mistake.”

While more than 130,000 U.S. troops remain in the country, patrols by heavily armed soldiers in hulking vehicles have largely disappeared from Baghdad, Mosul and Iraq’s other urban centers. Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said the United States had closed or returned to local control 120 bases and facilities, and would formally turn over or close another 30 by the end of Tuesday, Reuters reported from Washington.

Gen. Ray Odierno, commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, called the date a “significant milestone,” and said that U.S. forces would no longer conduct unilateral operations anywhere in the country.

Iraqis danced in the streets and set off fireworks overnight in impromptu celebrations to celebrate the pullout, a transition that the Iraqi government has said represents the nation’s return to full sovereignty.

“Out, America, out!” a group of sweat-drenched young men chanted Monday at a Baghdad park as the sun was setting. They jumped up and down to the deafening beat of drums and the wail of horns.

Across town, the virtual absence of American troops and helicopters, the cheerfulness of Iraqis in military uniform, and the cries of joy gave this scarred, bunkered capital a rare carnival-like atmosphere. Iraqi police and army cars were decked with ribbons, balloons, plastic flowers and new flags. A few Baghdadis drove under the sweltering midday sun Monday honking horns as passengers hung out the windows waving flags and yelling euphorically.

In Basra, the sentiment was inscribed on walls with spray paint: “No No Americans.” Another graffiti artist instructed: “Pull your troops from our Basra, we are its sons and want its sovereignty.”

Despite the violence Tuesday — and the news that four American troops had been killed in combat Monday — Iraqi and American leaders expressed confidence in Iraqi security forces, which in the days ahead will rely less on U.S. support. Regarding the celebratory atmosphere against the backdrop of continuing violence, Odierno said Iraqis have every reason to be proud.

“It’s a celebration of them taking responsibility for security of their own cities,” the general said.

The military gave no details about the deaths of the four American troops in Baghdad on Monday. Another soldier was killed Sunday in a separate attack. The ongoing bloodshed, Odierno said, “reminds me that there are still dangers out there. There are still people out there who do not want the government of Iraq to succeed.”

He said a “small number” of American soldiers — U.S. officials have declined to provide an exact count — would remain in Baghdad and other cities as trainers and enablers. But the military’s focus is shifting to outlying areas of the capital and the northern city of Mosul, as well as the borders with Iran and Syria.

Tuesday’s explosion in Kirkuk happened about 6 p.m. at Shorja Market when explosives packed in a vehicle detonated, Iraqi police officials said.

Americans are now entering a new phase in this war. As of July 1, they will have to behave as guests in a foreign land.

“There was a time here where we had pretty much carte blanche to do whatever we wanted to do,” Brig. Gen. Stephen R. Lanza, the top U.S. spokesman in Iraq, said recently. Going forward, he added, “all missions are coordinated with the Iraqi government.”

Some American troops have expressed concern about becoming more exposed after the withdrawal, because Iraqis will have unprecedented authority over U.S. military operations. U.S. commanders have said they were bracing for an uptick of attacks from extremist groups during the transition period, which occur almost daily, and will rely heavily on Iraq’s security forces for protection in the months ahead.

Odierno accused Iran of continuing to train, fund and support groups who carry out attacks in Iraq, often using rockets and armor-piercing roadside bomb attacks. Even as he acknowledged the peril Iraq still holds for American troops, however, Odierno said that in accordance with the withdrawal agreement the U.S. military will no longer conduct combat operations in Iraqi cities.

The pullback has created enormous fear and uncertainty among many Iraqis, who believe it will open the door for insurgents to increase their attacks. Apart from the organized celebrations, normally congested streets were empty in many parts of the capital Monday night and Tuesday, as Iraqis appeared to heed warnings of impending attacks by insurgents. But city streets were also largely empty of Humvees and U.S. troops — and, where people gathered, a celebratory mood prevailed.

Banners were strung around Baghdad proclaiming: “On the day of sovereignty, we’re lighting candles for a better future.” Anchors on state-run television wore folded Iraqi flags over their shoulders, and the station kept a graphic of a small Iraqi flag waving under the date “6/30″ on the top left corner of the screen.

At a celebration in Zawra Park, one of the largest in the country on Monday, revelers sang songs popular during the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s.

“To the front lines we go,” they sang. “Our bullets in our magazines.”

Then, spraying water from bottles at the crowd, they began chanting: “America has left! Baghdad is victorious!”

Iraqi policemen, many wearing body-armor vests without plates, bobbed their heads, taken by the moment.

“The Army of the U.S. is out of my country,” said Ibrahim Algurabi, 34, a dual U.S.-Iraqi citizen now living in Arizona who attended a concert of celebration in Baghdad’s Zawra Park. “People are ready for this change. There are a lot of opportunities to rebuild our country, to forget the past and think about the future.”

As Americans adapt to the vaguely defined terms of the security agreement that set June 30 as the deadline for soldiers to leave the cities, there is little talk among U.S. commanders and diplomats of engineering a victory in the 2 1/2 years they expect to remain here.

Some officials have begun saying privately that the best-case scenario would be to depart with a “modicum of dignity.”

Doing so will mean contending with a resilient insurgency, volatile politics and a growing assertiveness among Iraqis whose patience with the U.S. presence long ago wore thin.

Maliki has called the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the cities a “great victory.” He has not mentioned the thousands of U.S. lives lost in Iraq, or the billions of American tax dollars spent here. Between now and the August 2010 deadline by which the U.S. combat mission in Iraq is slated to end, U.S. troops will retain a significant, if less visible, presence in Baghdad as well as Mosul, in northern Iraq, and Basra, in the south. U.S. soldiers anticipate that they will have to defer to Iraqi leaders and commanders more often than not in order to conduct business in the cities.

With scores of urban outposts shut, a greater percentage of American soldiers are being deployed to the borders and the belts around Baghdad and Mosul, where U.S. commanders hope they will be able to interdict militants and weapons. All troops must withdraw by 2012, the final date of a drawdown timetable that neither Iraqi nor American officials are inclined to change.

Special correspondents Zaid Sabah, Dalya Hassan, K.I. Ibrahim and Aziz Alwan in Baghdad and Aahad Ali in Basra contributed to this report.

Jubilation in Iraq on Eve of U.S. Pullback

straightarrow — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:28:01 +0000

Withdrawal of Combat Troops From Cities Also Stirs Fear

By Ernesto Londoño

Washington Post Foreign Service
Tuesday, June 30, 2009

BAGHDAD, June 29 — Iraqis danced in the streets and set off fireworks Monday in impromptu celebrations of a pivotal moment in their nation’s troubled history: As of Tuesday, this is no longer America’s war.

Six years and three months after the March 2003 invasion, the United States will withdraw its remaining combat troops from Iraq’s cities and turn over security to Iraqi police and soldiers. While more than 130,000 U.S. troops remain in the country, patrols by heavily armed soldiers in hulking vehicles will largely disappear from Baghdad, Mosul and Iraq’s other urban centers.

The looming deadline has also created enormous fear and uncertainty among many Iraqis, who believe that the U.S. military pullback will open the door for insurgents to increase their attacks. Iraq remains a perilous place for the American troops stationed here, and they continue to be the top target for extremist groups. On Monday, some normally congested streets were virtually deserted after dark, as Iraqis appeared to heed warnings of impending attacks by insurgents.

But city streets were also largely empty of Humvees and U.S. troops. Those Iraqis who ventured out were in the mood to party, celebrating a moment that the Iraqi government has said represents its return to full sovereignty.

“Out, America, out!” a group of sweat-drenched young men chanted Monday at a Baghdad park as the sun was setting. They jumped up and down to the deafening beat of drums and the wail of horns.

Across town, the virtual absence of American troops and helicopters, the cheerfulness of Iraqis in military uniform, and the cries of joy gave this scarred, bunkered capital a rare carnival-like atmosphere. Iraqi police and army cars were decked with ribbons, balloons, plastic flowers and new flags. A few Baghdadis drove under the sweltering midday sun honking horns as passengers hung out the windows waving flags and yelling euphorically.

Banners were strung around Baghdad proclaiming: “On the day of sovereignty, we’re lighting candles for a better future.”

Anchors on state-run television wore folded Iraqi flags over their shoulders, and the station kept a graphic of a small Iraqi flag waving under the date “6/30″ on the top left corner of the screen.

At the Zawra Park celebration, one of the largest in the country on Monday, revelers sang songs popular during the war between Iraq and Iran in the 1980s.

“To the front lines we go,” they sang. “Our bullets in our magazines.”

Then, spraying water from bottles at the crowd, they began chanting: “America has left! Baghdad is victorious!”

Iraqi policemen, many wearing body-armor vests without plates, bobbed their heads, taken by the moment.

Americans now enter a new phase in this war. As of July 1, they will have to behave as guests in a foreign land.

Some officials have begun saying privately that the best-case scenario would be to depart with a “modicum of dignity.”

Doing so will mean contending with a resilient insurgency, volatile politics and a growing assertiveness among Iraqis whose patience with the U.S. presence long ago wore thin.

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has called the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the cities a “great victory.” He has not mentioned the thousands of U.S. lives lost in Iraq, or the billions of American tax dollars spent here. Between now and the August 2010 deadline by which the U.S. combat mission in Iraq is slated to end, U.S. troops will retain a significant, if less visible, presence in Baghdad as well as Mosul, in northern Iraq, and Basra, in the south. U.S. soldiers anticipate that they will have to defer to Iraqi leaders and commanders more often than not in order to conduct business in the cities.

Although security has improved considerably in recent months, the past few days have been bloody for Iraqis and Americans — and many remain deeply concerned about the ability of Iraq’s security forces to control the cities without substantial U.S. help.

A bombing in downtown Mosul on Monday killed 10 people. A U.S. soldier was killed in combat Sunday, the military said Monday; attacks on U.S. forces occur almost daily.

Anticipating a wave of attacks during the transition period, Iraqi soldiers and policemen were out in full strength across the country on Monday. Lines at checkpoints were longer as policemen conducted thorough searches.

At the Zawra Park celebration, Suhaile Muhsian Khlaf, 60, dressed in a black abaya, began to dance with abandon, the lone older woman in a sea of mostly young men dressed in Western clothes.

She hadn’t come to the park to celebrate, she said, stepping aside for a moment.

“Orphan,” she said, pointing to her young grandson, who was clutching her hand.

The family was recently evicted from a house where they were squatters. They hadn’t eaten well in days, she said.

“I came here because they told me there would be government officials,” she said. “This hunger is killing us.”

Special correspondents Zaid Sabah, Dalya Hassan, K.I. Ibrahim and Aziz Alwan in Baghdad and Aahad Ali in Basra contributed to this report.

Running on air

straightarrow — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:39:16 +0000

A battery fueled by air June 2009 From Economist.com

A cheaper, lighter and longer-lasting alternative to modern batteries

MOBILE phones looked like bricks in the 1980s. Indeed, they were so cumbersome that most were installed in cars. That was because the batteries required to power them were so hefty. When lithium-ion batteries were invented, mobile phones became small enough to be carried in a pocket or slipped into a handbag. Now a new design of battery that uses oxygen from ambient air to power devices could provide even smaller and lighter sources of power. Not only that, such batteries would be cheaper and last for longer between charges.

Lithium-ion batteries have two electrodes immersed in an electrically conductive solution, called an electrolyte. One of the electrodes, the cathode, is made of lithium cobalt oxide; the other, the anode, is composed of carbon. When the battery is being charged, positively charged lithium ions break away from the cathode and travel in the electrolyte to the anode, where they meet electrons brought there by a charging device.

When electricity is needed, the anode releases the lithium ions, which rapidly move back to the cathode. As they do so, the electrons that were paired with them in the anode during the charging process are released. These electrons travel around an external circuit to which the battery is attached and power it.

Peter Bruce and his colleagues at the University of St Andrews in Scotland came up with the idea of replacing the lithium cobalt oxide electrode with a cheaper and lighter alternative. They designed an electrode made from porous carbon and lithium oxide. They knew that lithium oxide forms naturally from lithium ions, electrons and oxygen, but, to their surprise, they found that it could also be made to separate easily when an electric current passed through it. They exposed one side of their porous carbon electrode to an electrolyte rich in lithium ions and put a mesh window on the other side of the electrode through which air could be drawn. Oxygen from the air took the place of the cobalt oxide.

When they charged their battery, the lithium ions migrated to the anode where they combined with electrons from the charging device. When they discharged it, lithium ions and electrons were released from the anode. The ions crossed the electrolyte and the electrons traveled round the external circuit. The ions and electrons then met at the cathode, where they combined with the oxygen to form lithium oxide that filled the pores in the carbon.

Because the oxygen being used by the battery comes from the surrounding air rather than having to be carried around inside the battery, the device that Dr Bruce’s team has designed can be a mere one-eighth to one-tenth the size and weight of modern batteries, while still carrying the same charge. Alternatively, batteries using the new technology would last eight to ten times longer than modern batteries of the same size.

Performance and size are not the only expected improvements. Although they are not yet commercially available, making such a battery is expected to be cheaper. Lithium cobalt oxide accounts for 30% of the cost of a lithium-ion battery. Air, however, is free.

straightarrow — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 23:18:23 +0000

In Obama’s Inner Circle, Debate Over Memos’ Release Was Intense

Some Feared That a Partisan Outcry Could Obstruct Larger Agenda

By R. Jeffrey Smith, Michael D. Shear and Walter Pincus

Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, April 24, 2009

As President Obama met with top advisers on the evening of April 15, he faced one of the sharpest policy divides of his young administration.

Five CIA directors — including Leon E. Panetta and his four immediate predecessors — and Obama’s top counterterrorism adviser had expressed firm opposition to the release of interrogation details in four “top secret” memos in which Bush administration lawyers sanctioned harsh tactics.

On the other side of the issue were Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., Director of National Intelligence Dennis C. Blair and White House counsel Gregory B. Craig, whose colleagues during the campaign recall him expressing enthusiasm for fixing U.S. detainee policy.

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates had said he supported the disclosures because he saw the information’s release as inevitable and because the White House was willing to promise that CIA officers would not be prosecuted for any abuse. Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mike Mullen sided with Gates.

Seated in Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel’s West Wing office with about a dozen of his political, legal and security appointees, Obama requested a mini-debate in which one official was chosen to argue for releasing the memos and another was assigned to argue against doing so. When it ended, Obama dictated on the spot a draft of his announcement that the documents would be released, while most of the officials watched, according to an official who was present. The disclosure happened the next day.

Obama’s aides have told political allies that the last-minute conversation, which ended around 9:30 p.m., demonstrated the president’s commitment to airing both sides of a debate that was particularly contentious. But it also reflected widespread angst inside the White House that a public airing and repudiation of the harsh interrogation techniques that the last administration sought to keep secret would spark a national security debate with conservatives that could undermine Obama’s broader agenda.

Several top aides had argued, for example, that the question of whether to release the memos should be put before a “truth commission,” effectively postponing resolution of the issue for months. But Obama vetoed the idea on the grounds that it would create the divisive debate his closest advisers feared — a viewpoint he reiterated at a meeting with lawmakers yesterday. Craig also argued persuasively, other officials said, that the federal judge in New York overseeing a lawsuit seeking the memos’ release was unlikely to approve any significant delay.

Now Obama is being lashed by former Bush appointees and is facing growing pressure to accept such a commission. Some liberal activist groups presented petitions with 250,000 signatures to Holder at a House hearing yesterday, asking him to appoint an independent prosecutor to investigate the originators of the interrogation tactics. Meanwhile, debate is swirling in Washington not only about the merits of the techniques but also about the wisdom of Obama’s decision to exercise his unique authority to instantly transform the “top secret” documents into public ones.

This account is based on interviews with more than a dozen officials, some of whom spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to talk about the internal deliberations.

Several Obama aides said the president’s decision was in line with his frequent criticism during the campaign of President George W. Bush’s policies on interrogations at secret prisons. On his second day in office, Obama banned the prisons and the tactics in an executive order.

The aides also said they hope the memos’ release will focus public attention on the coldness and sterility of the legal justifications for abusive techniques, with Obama telling reporters in the Oval Office on Tuesday that the documents demonstrate that the nation lost its “moral bearings” in the Bush years.

A source familiar with White House views said Obama’s advisers are further convinced that letting the public know exactly what the past administration sanctioned will undermine what they see as former vice president Richard B. Cheney’s effort to “box Obama in” by claiming that the executive order heightened the risk of a terrorist attack.

Officials say the process of rolling back the controversial policy began shortly before Obama took office, when the president-elect dispatched half a dozen experts to the CIA for two days of secret briefings in the director’s conference room.

At the time, Obama was leaning toward adopting the Army Field Manual rules for intelligence interrogations but wanted to receive a broader perspective. He sent Craig; retired Gen. James L. Jones, now the national security adviser; foreign policy adviser Denis McDonough; former senators David L. Boren (D-Okla.) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.); and former CIA general counsel Jeffrey H. Smith to Langley.

During the meetings, then-CIA Director Michael V. Hayden, his deputy Steve Kappes and about 20 other senior CIA officers sought to explain the agency’s counterterrorism and rendition programs and to present the best case for retaining the option of reestablishing secret prisons and using aggressive interrogation methods, according to four of those present. Hayden emphasized that the agency had discarded most of the old programs, including the secret prisons, in 2006.

The use of waterboarding ended in 2003, but Hayden said he wanted to keep the flexibility to utilize some of the other, less controversial techniques. Boren and Smith said the group was not convinced that whatever useful intelligence had been gleaned from the programs warranted keeping them as an option.

“They said that they had produced valuable intelligence,” Smith said. “We took them at their word.” But the group’s consensus was that “whatever utility it had at the outset . . . the secret prisons and enhanced techniques were no longer playing a useful role — the costs outweighed the gains.” He said those costs included obvious damage to the nation’s values and identity, and problems with U.S. allies that strongly opposed the use of such methods.

Boren, who chaired the Senate intelligence committee from 1987 to 1993 and is now president of the University of Oklahoma, said that attending the briefings was “one of the most deeply disturbing experiences I have had” and that “I wanted to take a bath when I heard it. I was ashamed of it.” He said he concluded that “fear was used to justify the use of techniques that violate our values and weaken our intelligence” and that the agency did not prove those methods “are particularly effective at getting the truth.”

One of those present said that when asked, the CIA officers acknowledged that some foreign intelligence agencies had refused, for example, to share information about the location of terrorism suspects for fear of becoming implicated in any eventual torture of those suspects. Sources said that Jones shared these concerns and that, as a former military officer, he worried that any use of harsh interrogations by the United States could make it more likely that American soldiers in captivity would be subjected to similar tactics.

The issue of releasing the Justice Department memos, which Craig first reviewed in December, became the focus of attention in mid-March, when the department’s lawyers warned the White House of an April 2 federal court deadline that could force their hand. They told Craig they were prepared to offer a legal defense for keeping all or part of the memos secret but warned it would not be a strong case, in part because much of the information was included in a leaked report by the International Committee of the Red Cross summarizing detainee mistreatment.

Craig and others in the White House were aware of the legal and political implications of both partial and full disclosure of the memos, and with the president they began consultations on how to proceed. Meanwhile, the Justice Department received an extension from the court.

In a series of small gatherings over the next two weeks, before Obama went to Europe, he and his staff met with officials from the CIA, the Pentagon, the intelligence director’s office, the State Department and the Joint Chiefs of Staff. A full National Security Council meeting and another gathering of principals followed, in which Cabinet members met in the White House situation room and were later joined by the president. Obama continued to huddle with aides on the topic during breaks in his European trip.

A key last-minute debate emerged over whether to redact details of the interrogation methods while releasing the legal explanations underpinning the approvals. Panetta had no objection to disclosing the analysis but “strongly opposed declassification of their operational content,” according to an intelligence official. His fear was that it would plant doubts in foreign governments about the U.S. ability to shroud collaborative activities, and he predicted — accurately — that it would lead to calls for more investigations.

Gates told reporters yesterday that he “was quite concerned, as you might expect, with the potential backlash in the Middle East and in the theaters where we’re involved in conflict, and that it might have a negative impact on our troops. All that said, you know, we just had a significant investigation release by the Senate Armed Services Committee. . . . And so there is a certain inevitability, I believe, that much of this will eventually come out; much has already come out. . . . I think all of us wrestled with it for quite some time, in terms of where we were on it.”

Meet the Eyeborg

straightarrow — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 21:43:20 +0000

LONDON, England — If Rob Spence achieves his goal, technology will change his view of the world — literally.

Eyeborg: Documentary filmmaker Rob Spence has created a working prototype of his camera-embedded eye.

more photos »

Spence, who lost an eye in a childhood accident, is in the process of installing a tiny camera into his prosthetic eye. He announced his plan last year, and now he’s a step closer to fulfilling his aim.

“It’s been an expensive and laborious process to make this thing. But fortunately we have leveraged the right people and have a working prototype,” he says.

A documentary filmmaker based in Toronto, Spence wants to use the wireless camera in his eye to make films and examine where “recorded image and video intersect with humanity.” Although, he says, the prototype containing delicate electronics isn’t ready for frequent use yet.

Spence, who calls himself the “eyeborg,” is the latest example of the convergence of human and machine. No longer restricted to the realm of sci-fi novels and movies, technology is increasingly being integrated into the living body.

Human kind has been using technology to improve the power of their senses since the days of cave men, according to James Geary, author of “The Body Electric: An Anatomy of the New Bionic Senses.”

He loosely describes bionics as any device that extends, repairs or enhances natural sensory abilities. For him, that includes everything from cochlear implants that provide deaf people with a sense of sound to the wireless gadgets people use today to talk on their mobile phones hands free.

Vital Signs

In recent years, technology has helped create smaller, more power efficient electronic devices. As a result, there has been a “big conceptual shift towards inserting these components inside, instead of outside the body,” says Geary.

Spence will not be augmenting his senses in the traditional bionic sense — his vision won’t improve at all because his retina was damaged to the point where he had his eye replaced with a prosthetic.

But a California company, Second Sight, has developed a device that can restore limited vision for some blind people. So far, the company says it has implanted the device in 21 people around the world who have retinal degeneration.

The device, which is still in clinical trials, consists of a camera mounted on a pair of glasses. Captured images are transmitted to electrodes implanted in the retina, which then send images to the brain. The device gives patients the ability to perceive patterns of light, which are then interpreted as images.

Retinal implants, mind-controlled limbs, electrodes inserted in the brain — they’re just a few examples of next-generation technologies that may speed up the integration of body and machine. See photo gallery of bionic devices »

Dr. Miguel Nicolelis is a neuroscientist at Duke University. He has spent the last decade investigating the links between brain activity and devices, an area of research known as brain machine interface.

He hopes developments in the field will lead to the creation of the next generation of mind-controlled limbs. “We hope to restore mobility to those who have lost the ability to send messages to the brain and their muscles,” he tells CNN.

Scientists have already shown that monkeys with probes inserted in their brains are able to control artificial devices like robotic arms with their minds. They’ve found that computer software can interpret signals picked up by the electrodes.

Brain machine interface ultimately could help restore mobility to quadriplegics and others, such as those suffering from spinal cord injuries, says Nicolelis.

He’s involved in a global project called Walk-Again that aims to develop a wearable exoskeleton that paralyzed users could control with signals from their brain.

Finding a way to safely insert electrodes and probes into human brains remains an obstacle. But scientists are constantly working on finding ways to better integrate devices in living organisms.

Seamlessly fusing engineered devices into living tissue can be challenging since devices usually are metal, hard and flat, according to David Martin, a professor of materials science and engineering at the University of Michigan.

“This is where the real interesting scientific frontier is — implanted devices integrating themselves in the brain, ear, eye and in muscle. The question is whether we can do that and not cause too much cell damage,” he says.

The technology being developed is cutting edge and pushing boundaries, but there are potential pitfalls. Since it’s still early days, no one knows how bodies will react over the long term to inserted devices.

Furthermore, people have a heightened awareness when it comes to their body, and privacy concerns are already being raised, according to Geary.

“We’re just really sensitive about anything we put in our bodies,” he says. In science fiction, the cyborg is almost always the bad guy. The big barrier is overcoming that fear, he says.
#CNN NEWS#

Jackson

straightarrow — Sat, 28 Mar 2009 20:54:55 +0000

More than just repairs

straightarrow — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:56:42 +0000

Bank regulation in America

More than just repairs

Mar 26th 2009 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

The Obama administration unveils core elements of its financial-regulation agenda

AFP

TIM GEITHNER has not had an easy time of it, but he is probably too busy to dwell on his tribulations. Three days after unveiling a plan to cleanse banks of their troubled loans and securities, America’s treasury secretary was back in front of a congressional committee outlining proposals to extend the government’s grip on the financial system. These would mark the biggest expansion of federal regulation since the 1930s.

The new framework has four parts: containing systemic risks; protecting consumers and investors; streamlining the regulatory structure; and international co-ordination. Mr Geithner had little to say about the last three, promising details in the coming weeks. Instead he focused on systemic risk, in part because that will be a focus of discussion at the G20 summit in London next week—and European countries have been pressing the Americans to tackle the issue—but also because the Obama government itself sees it as the priority in the wake of Lehman Brothers’ failure and the messy rescue of American International Group (AIG).

Mr Geithner urged Congress to help him enact “new rules of the game”, not “repairs at the margin”. His priorities are twofold. First, the government needs the authority to take over troubled non-banks whose failure could destabilise markets and to wind them down in an orderly way by selling assets, renegotiating contracts and so on. It is largely because it lacked such power that the AIG bail-out has been a fiasco. The Treasury, which has financial heft, suggests sharing this authority with the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which has experience handling failed banks.

The other pressing issue is the creation of a “systemic-risk regulator”. This would help to police large financial firms of all stripes and keep a lookout for emerging dangers across the system, such as the shoddy loan underwriting and credit bubble that helped to cause this crisis. Government officials want the Federal Reserve to take the job on, but its central role in the AIG scandal has weakened its credentials in congressional eyes.

One way to strengthen the system, Mr Geithner believes, is to force banks to plump up their capital cushions. They should do this “counter-cyclically”, building up their defences in good times so they have more protection against losses in downturns, thus dampening rather than amplifying credit cycles. The rules currently work the other way, allowing banks to sail closer to the wind when times are good.

For the first time, the administration also plans to throw a regulatory net over non-bank pools of capital, such as hedge funds. They may not have caused the crisis, contrary to fears beforehand; indeed, they have been hurt more by the demise of banks and investment banks than the other way round. Nevertheless, the government wants all funds over a certain size to register with the Securities and Exchange Commission and provide it with more information about their assets and leverage. The very largest, if deemed systemically important, could become subject to “stringent” capital requirements. These rules may be extended to money-market funds—a huge and supposedly stable industry that wobbled alarmingly after Lehman’s fall.

The last plank of the proposed systemic framework is stronger oversight of derivatives, such as the credit-default swaps that detonated within AIG. Those that are traded over the counter (away from exchanges) will face federal regulation, and supervision of dealers will be tightened. To cut “counterparty risk”, all standardised over-the-counter contracts will have to be cleared through a central entity. Firms are already jostling to win this business. “The days when a major insurance company could bet the house on credit-default swaps with no one watching and no credible backing…must end,” said Mr Geithner in his testimony.

Many details remain to be hammered out. It is not clear, for example, who would pay the costs of handling bust non-banks; one idea is to charge a fee to all firms deemed systemically important. Some question whether a risk regulator would really be able to do much about looming dangers it identifies in good times, when everyone else is too busy enjoying themselves. Moreover, the politics of regulatory reform are sure to be messy—and most of the government’s proposals require legislation.

There is also a debate to be had about where regulation needs to be tougher, and where it should simply be smarter. As Mr Geithner acknowledged, “there were failures where regulation was extensive and failures where it was absent.” Banks, after all, blew up spectacularly despite being covered in red tape. Nevertheless, this week’s proposals make clear that the accent for years to come will be on re-regulation more than innovation. For the past quarter of a century, politicians and regulators stood back from financial markets, trusting them to set their own tolerance for risk. They are now wading back in.

“I’m programmed only for victory”

straightarrow — Fri, 27 Mar 2009 16:31:54 +0000

Governor sees possibility in budget crisis

Friday, March 27, 2009

California’s budget crisis could turn out to be a good thing for the state, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday, because it will give voters a chance to approve reforms that could stop another fiscal emergency from happening again.

Schwarzenegger, joined by legislative leaders from both parties, met with The Chronicle’s editorial board to ask for support for all six budget measures on the May 19 special election ballot.

The measures, numbered 1A to 1F, stem from the Legislature’s efforts this year to close a nearly $42 billion budget gap. If passed, the measures would provide an estimated $5.8 billion in borrowing and revenue transfers and authorize an extension of temporary state taxes to bring California an additional $16 billion in new revenue.

It’s important to pass all six budget measures, Schwarzenegger said.

“They’re all interconnected,” he said. “It’s not like going to the grocery story where you can pick and choose.”

Even so, Proposition 1A is the key to the package. By putting a cap on new state spending and creating a new, larger rainy-day fund, the measure will smooth out a decadeslong cycle of boom and bust in California’s budget that has brought financial chaos to the state, the governor said.

That proposed measure “would never have happened without the economic crisis,” Schwarzenegger added. “Crisis brings opportunity.”

But opponents of the measure say they’ve heard the governor’s claims before. In 2004, Schwarzenegger put a pair of budget measures, Proposition 57 and Proposition 58, on the ballot, promising that they would solve forever the financial problems he said were caused by a free-spending state Legislature.

The measures passed, but the troubles didn’t end.

“We’re hearing the same argument the governor made (in 2004), that this is the answer to the state’s problems,” Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, told reporters earlier this week. “But this is a $16 billion tax increase masquerading as tax reform.”

Two of the leading GOP candidates for governor, state Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner and former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, have come out against Prop. 1A, as have the League of Women Voters and several Democrat-leaning labor unions and advocacy groups.

But in 2004, no one could have predicted the worldwide recession that has drubbed the California economy over the past year, Schwarzenegger said Thursday.

“This is an unusual situation for us to get into,” with the deficit growing month by month as the economy tanked, he said. “It was extraordinary to see … the budget balanced in (February) and by March find it’s out of whack by $8 billion.”

Complaints about the measures are to be expected, said Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, D-Baldwin Vista (Los Angeles County).

“All constituencies on both sides of the aisles are up in arms about different things,” she said.

State Sen. Dave Cogdill, R-Modesto, lost his job as Senate minority leader because of his support of the budget deal. But he joined Schwarzenegger on Thursday in talking about the importance of the special election.

When people say they oppose the budget measures, “ask them what is the alternative … and tell us how it can be done politically,” he said.

While recent polls have suggested the budget measures could be in trouble on election day, Schwarzenegger believes that only means more work is needed to let voters know how this election can change California’s future.

“I’m programmed only for victory,” he said. “I’ll travel up and down the state and work my butt off to let people know about this.”

Images

Fixing America’s banks

straightarrow — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 21:07:22 +0000

Second time lucky

Mar 23rd 2009 | NEW YORK
From Economist.com

Tim Geithner’s new effort to treat America’s financial toxins

WILL it be second time lucky for Tim Geithner? On Monday March 23rd, six weeks after being heckled for a maddeningly vague bank-rescue plan, America’s beleaguered treasury secretary at last gave details of a public-private partnership to invest in the troubled assets clogging up banks’ balance-sheets. Cleaning up this mess is seen as a prerequisite of financial and broader economic recovery, and the Americans were keen to unveil a proposal before leaders of the G20 countries meet to seek a way out of the crisis, in early April. The new plan is certainly a lot meatier than the February effort, and markets for both debt and equities gave it an initial thumbs-up, the Dow Jones Industrial Average rising by almost 500 points and credit-derivative spreads signalling a lower risk of bank defaults. There are, alas, several reasons why it may struggle to succeed.

In a sense, America has come full circle, reviving the asset-buying component of the original Troubled Asset Relief Programme (TARP), a $700 billion rescue fund created last October which was quickly refashioned into a bank-recapitalisation vehicle. This time, however, private investors will do the buying, not the government, though they will get plenty of help, through co-investment by the Treasury, cheap loans from the Federal Reserve and debt guarantees from the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. For every private dollar invested in impaired loans, a matching dollar of equity and $12 of other financing will come from the public purse. And the loans will be non-recourse, meaning investors who walk away from loss-making deals lose only their initial investment.

Paradoxically, at a time when private firms are furiously cutting back on debt, the government sees this “leverage”, or borrowing, as the best way to unfreeze the market for mortgages and related securities. In theory private buyers, bidding in competition with one another, should be better than the government at determining the real value of assets; the government is more likely to overpay. Moreover, by combining private and public capital, the government hopes to generate up to $1 trillion of buying power using $75 billion-100 billion of TARP money.

Will private investors nibble? The potential returns look juicy, even though they must share profits equally with the taxpayer. Big firms that would be in the running to manage funds in the programme, such as BlackRock and PIMCO, have given it a cautious welcome. But others, such as hedge funds and private-equity groups, are wary of participating in government-backed plans after witnessing the hysteria whipped up over bonus payments at American International Group (AIG), a clapped-out (and now government-controlled) insurer.

Government officials have tried to quell these concerns by calling potential asset-buyers “good guys” and providing assurances that they will be exempt from pay restrictions aimed at recipients of taxpayer largesse. But fear abounds that they will become the next target of self-righteous politicians, especially if they are seen to be reaping windfalls. “The political risks are scary,” says one hedge-fund manager, who also points out that some of the plan’s details are still missing: for instance, the interest rate and duration on loans for mortgage-backed securities have yet to be determined.

Another question is whether banks will sell. Many are still holding assets, particularly whole loans, at unrealistically high values. With government help, buyers will be able to offer more than they would if relying solely on their own resources. But it may still not be enough to persuade banks to sell, since any amount below the carrying value would force them to take a write-down and deplete precious capital. (This is a bigger issue for stodgy commercial banks than it is for Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, which have aggressively marked down duff assets.) There may be a way round this impasse, thinks Michael Feroli, an economist with JPMorgan Chase: regulators could use the results of the “stress tests” they are currently conducting on large banks to force them to sell assets, in the process topping them up with fresh capital in return for a bigger government stake.

Moreover, the new plan may not be big enough to deal with the bad-asset problem. The sum of $1 trillion may sound a lot, but at least double that amount is in danger of souring in America as house prices continue to fall, unpaid credit-card debts mount and more companies slip into bankruptcy. With the chances of wringing more money out of Congress for troubled banks low and falling, the new plan could hit a funding wall. To date, just under half of the TARP’s $700 billion has been disbursed. Add in other commitments and the toxic-asset plan, and the total climbs to as much as $608 billion. Fine, except that more than the remaining $92 billion may be needed to plug banks’ capital holes once the stress tests are completed.

So Mr Geithner could face some hard choices. He will desperately want the new plan to succeed, not only because cleansing banks of toxic assets is so important to reviving confidence, but also because its failure could unseat him. He is already reeling from criticism that he was slow to put a lid on the pay furore at AIG. Barack Obama has been forced to defend Mr Geithner against calls for his resignation.

If the public-private partnership proves to be a damp squib, Mr Geithner can expect to face a barrage of complaints that he took the wrong course. He rejected both the standard “bad bank” model, in which the government takes on rotten assets, and takes over the banks most riddled with them; and the asset-insurance approach favoured by Britain, in which the state takes on the risk of a credit portfolio for a fee. Whether that is a decision he comes to regret will become clearer in the coming weeks.

Thursday March 5, 2009

straightarrow — Thu, 05 Mar 2009 15:27:51 +0000

Philippine President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo pardons the remaining 10 convicted murderers involved in the Assassination of Ninoy Aquino. (Inquirer.net)
Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao delivers the annual government work report as the 11th National People’s Congress’s second session begins. (Xinhua News)
China stresses domestic demand and targets about 8% economic growth in 2009. (Xinhua News)
Palestinian bulldozer driver is shot after ramming a police car and a bus in Jerusalem in a suspected terror attack. (Sky News)