2011年6月27日 星期一

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: Four Sausalito Houseboats to Call Home (Y! News - San Francisco)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

Four Sausalito Houseboats to Call Home (Y! News - San Francisco)
27 Jun 2011, 4:26 pm

Curbed SF

Abby Pontzer

What's better than just being outdoors in the Bay Area? Living on the Bay, silly! Today we bring you four houseboats to call home in Sausalito -- whether for good or just for a night.


Our first model is basic and beginner. For $279,000, you get a 1-bed, 1-bath recently remodeled floating home, complete with roof deck and glass sun room. Your berth at the dock (houseboat version of HOA) costs $840 per month, but includes water, garbage, and two parking spots. Your dock neighborhood is filled with greenery and potted plants, and looks like it's probably a pretty cozy crew.

View more photos of the houseboats.

One step up from basic is this 3-bed, 2-bath for $549,000. On the northern end of the Sausalito houseboat community, this home features high ceilings and multiple levels. Our favorite feature is the "shower for two" in the master bath, making us think this might be more of a swingers' dock than the others. Berth costs are $691 per month, including water, garbage, and park maintenance, but also prohibiting dogs. No water-loving Labrador for you here.

On the luxury end of the spectrum is a 4-bed, 3.5 bath floating home for $1,150,000. Touted as an ultimate America's Cup Experience, it features your own hot tub as well as two fireplaces to cozy up at the end of a long day of being fabulous. If you're not quite ready to commit to life on the docks, we also found this property on airbnb (with much better photos) for $425 per night.

View more photos of the houseboats.

Lastly, another houseboat vacation rental, for those not quite ready to become attached to a million-dollar-floater. This home can fit up to four and has features all sorts of fun quirks designed to make a small space work. It's probably technically a 1-bed with another bed hiding in an alcove behind the TV, not to mention that the shower is in the kitchen. Nightly rates start at $80 for one person sharing and go to $300 for four people taking over the whole place.

Photo captions: Curbed and airbnb.com.
· 10 Issaquah Dock [Redfin]
· 17 Gate 6 1/2 Road [Redfin]
· 27 E Pier [Redfin]
· Sausalito Floating Home (Houseboat) [airbnb]
· San Francisco / Sausalito Houseboat [airbnb]

More from Curbed SF:
Top San Francisco Dog Spot: Cast Your Vote!
Twenty-Two Rooms, Coming Soon to a Presidio Near You

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: Can't ban violent video sales to kids, court says (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

Can't ban violent video sales to kids, court says (AP)
27 Jun 2011, 9:23 pm

WASHINGTON – States cannot ban the sale or rental of ultraviolent video games to children, the Supreme Court ruled Monday, rejecting such limits as a violation of young people's First Amendment rights and leaving it up to parents and the multibillion-dollar gaming industry to decide what kids can buy.

The high court, on a 7-2 vote, threw out California's 2005 law covering games sold or rented to those under 18, calling it an unconstitutional violation of free-speech rights. Writing for the majority, Justice Antonin Scalia, said, "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply."

Scalia, who pointed out the violence in a number of children's fairy tales, said that while states have legitimate power to protect children from harm, "that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Justices Stephen Breyer and Clarence Thomas dissented from the decision, with Breyer saying it makes no sense to legally block children's access to pornography yet allow them to buy or rent brutally violent video games.

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said.

Video games, said Scalia's majority opinion, fall into the same category as books, plays and movies as entertainment that "communicates ideas — and even social messages" deserving of First Amendment free-speech protection. And non-obscene speech "cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them," he said.

This decision follows the court's recent movement on First Amendment cases, with the justices throwing out attempts to ban animal cruelty videos, protests at military funerals and political speech by businesses.

The court will test those limits again next session when it takes up a new case involving government's effort to protect children from what they might see and hear. The justices agreed to review appeals court rulings that threw out Federal Communications Commission rules against the isolated use of expletives as well as fines against broadcasters who showed a woman's nude buttocks on a 2003 episode of ABC's "NYPD Blue."

The decision to hear the FCC case was one of the last the full court made this session. Before leaving on their annual summer break on Monday, the justices also:

• Voted 5-4 to strike down a provision of a campaign financing system in Arizona that gives extra cash to publicly funded candidates who face privately funded rivals and independent groups.

• Agreed to hear arguments in the fall or winter on whether police need a warrant before using a global positioning system device to track a suspect's movements.

• Refused to hear an appeal from former detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq who wanted to sue defense contractors over claims of abuse.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010. The industry has set up its own rating system to warn parents which video games are appropriate for which ages, with the rating "M" placed on games that are considered to be especially violent and only for mature adults.

That system is voluntary, however. California's 2005 law would have prohibited anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Parents would have been able to buy the games for their children, but retailers who sold directly to minors would have faced fines of up to $1,000 for each game sold.

That means that children would have needed an adult to get games like "Postal 2," the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that includes the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire. It would also apply to the popular "Grand Theft Auto" games, from Rockstar Games, that allow gamers to portray carjacking, gun-toting gangsters.

The California law never took effect. Lower courts have said that the law violated minors' constitutional rights, and that California lacked enough evidence to prove that violent games cause physical and psychological harm to minors. Courts in six other states, including Michigan and Illinois, reached similar conclusions, striking down similar bans.

Video game makers and sellers celebrated their victory, saying Monday's decision puts them on the same legal footing as other forms of entertainment. "There now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music and other expressive entertainment," said Bo Andersen, president and CEO of the Entertainment Merchants Association.

But the battle may not be over. Leland Yee, a child psychologist and California state senator who wrote the video game ban, told The Associated Press Monday that he was reading the dissents in hopes of finding a way to reintroduce the law in a way that would be constitutional.

"It's disappointing the court didn't understand just how violent these games are," Yee told the AP.

Thomas argued in his separate dissent that the nation's founders never intended for free speech rights to "include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians."

And at least two justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, indicated they would be willing to reconsider their votes under certain circumstances. "I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem," Alito said, suggesting that a narrower state law might be upheld.

States can legally ban children from getting pornography. But Scalia said in his ruling that, unlike depictions of sexual conduct, there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence. He noted the violence in the original depictions of many popular children's fairy tales such as Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said.

"Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," he said.

And there is no proof that violent video games cause harm to children, or any more harm than another other form of entertainment, he said.

One doctor "admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated `E' or even when they `view a picture of a gun," Scalia said.

Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, said the decision created a constitutionally authorized "end-run on parental authority."

"I wonder what other First Amendment right does a child have against their parents' wishes?" he said. "Does a child now have a constitutional right to bear arms if their parent doesn't want them to buy a gun? How far does this extend? It's certainly concerning to us that something as simple as requiring a parental oversight to purchase an adult product has been undermined by the court."

The case is Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 08-1448.

___

Associated Press writers Paul Elias and Derrik J. Lang contributed to this story from California.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: War at the Jersey shore over who rules the beaches (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

War at the Jersey shore over who rules the beaches (AP)
27 Jun 2011, 1:12 am

LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP, N.J. – New Jerseyans have to put up with taxes, tolls, toxic waste and, occasionally, Snooki. So an occasional trip to the beach is all that keeps some folks here sane.

Now officials in the nation's most densely populated state are rewriting public beach access rules that could make it easier for well-to-do towns to keep out-of-towners off their beaches — and a sandstorm is brewing.

The state says it had to act and give more local control over access after a court decision struck down more stringent rules that spelled out uniform standards for each shore town. The state feels it can accomplish more by working with shore towns and giving them flexibility rather than dictating a "one-size-fits-all" access policy to them.

But many beachgoers fear the new rules, if adopted, would reward the very people who have made it so hard for outsiders to reach the beach for decades.

Joe Woerner, an official with the Jersey Shore Surfrider Foundation, said he was handcuffed as a teenager 20 years ago as he came out of the ocean with his surfboard. He was taken to a police holding cell in Sea Girt. Crossing a hundred yards or so of sand without a beach badge.

"I was a 15-year-old boy arrested for using the ocean," he said. "These are the kind of people who will be making our rules."

Most New Jersey beach towns require surfers to buy and wear beach badges costing anywhere from $5 to $12 a day, regardless of how long they are on the sand or in the water. Woerner's charges were eventually dropped, but not before "a bunch of people who own places on the beach gave me grief about being on the beach without a badge and how surfers were what's wrong with our town."

Oceanfront homeowners like Dorothy Jedziniak of Ship Bottom feel there's already more than enough access to beaches in her corner of Long Beach Island.

"We are being attacked with tourism, business and inundation," she said at a public hearing on the plan, appealing that state officials stand firm and implement the new rules, which she feels would lessen the influx of visitors.

"We have a beautiful island," she said. "I ask you, please: hang onto it."

New Jersey is one of a tiny handful of places in the United States that makes people pay for the privilege of dipping their toes in the surf or spreading a blanket on the sand. Under a legal doctrine dating back to the Roman Empire, the ocean, bay and river shorelines are to be open forever to the public.

In practice, though, it doesn't always work out that way. Well-to-do oceanfront homeowners fear an invasion of tourist hordes, with their noise, litter, loud colors and louder radios. Inland residents resent having to pay with their tax dollars to maintain beaches that officials in some shore towns make it hard for the public to use.

A Quinnipiac University poll released last week found 48 percent of New Jerseyans feel shore towns make it too hard for the public to use beaches, while 43 percent said the current level of access is OK. They also overwhelmingly said they want the state to mandate bathrooms near the beach — something the new rules don't require.

Beach access advocates note that almost all of New Jersey's progress over the last 50 years in ensuring outsiders' beach rights has come through costly, draw-out litigation — often driven by the state itself. That's why many are so upset that the state is relinquishing the stick in favor of the carrot.

Tourism is a $35.5 billion industry in New Jersey; 67.8 million people visited the state last year, many of them flocking to its beaches. Most shore towns realize they're dependent on tourism to keep restaurants, grocery and liquor stores, gas stations and other businesses afloat, and to hold down permanent residents' property taxes. Shore tourism and higher sales tax receipts also benefit the state.

But some shore towns seem to be just fine with mostly locals on their sand, and disagreements over who can and should use the beach sometimes take on elements of class warfare.

Mantoloking, about 50 miles north of Atlantic City, is one of the wealthiest towns in New Jersey — a quarter of its 423 permanent residents list their occupation as "corporate executive" and more than 50 homes there are worth $2 million or more.

The town was about to spend $900,000 in 2007 to buy property for beachgoers' parking and a public bathroom but residents persuaded the borough council to back down. One property owner dismissively mentioned how Mantoloking might become like other, less-tony resort communities if it encouraged more of the public to come, adding, "when you sleep with dogs, you pick up fleas."

Some shore towns use tactics like eliminating or severely restricting parking, not providing rest rooms, and banning food and drink from the beach. That places some beaches off-limits to anyone but locals who can walk to the beach, then back home to eat or answer nature's call. For decades, Bay Head's beaches were legally off-limits to anyone but residents, until a court forced them to admit anyone who buys a badge.

In Mantoloking, beachgoers can only park their cars on public streets for two hours. In parts of Long Beach Island like the Loveladies and North Beach sections of Long Beach Township, many pathways to the shoreline are lined with signs warning, "Private drive. No public beach access."

In Sea Bright, there's little if any on-street parking along much of the sea wall taking up a good chunk of the oceanfront. Rows of privately owned beach clubs have posted signs on the sand seeking to keep non-members out — even though they signed a legal settlement in 2009 with the state attorney general's office over beach access, calling for the public to be able to use 60 percent of those beaches, up to 150 feet from the shoreline. The state had sued, saying the clubs were benefiting from taxpayer-paid sand for beach restoration, yet wrongfully excluding the public from all but a 15-foot-wide strip at the water's edge.

Bob Martin, New Jersey's environmental protection commissioner, says the state had to change the rules because an appeals court in 2008 struck down rules requiring public access points every quarter-mile along the shore, parking and bathrooms. The south Jersey beach town of Avalon sued, saying the state overstepped its bounds by requiring too much public access, and unreasonable requirements like 24-hour access to beaches and marinas.

Martin said the administration of Gov. Chris Christie "believes that public access is a fundamental right for the people of New Jersey. What we're trying to do with these regulations is enhance public access. In the state of New Jersey, 95 to 98 percent of our 127 miles of oceanfront is accessible to the public. We've counted over 1,000 access points to the shore. We seem to focus on two or three towns we have problems with. We need to look at the big picture."

Martin said he plans to "tweak" the proposed rules to more clearly spell out after-hours access rights for two of the groups who complained the loudest: surfers and anglers.

"If you're talking about keeping the teenage parties off the beach at 3 a.m., that's one thing," he said. "Keeping fishermen off the beach just before dawn is quite another."

James Hill, a suburban Philadelphia resident, says he spends 95 percent of his free time fishing at the Jersey shore.

"These beaches rejuvenate and bring life to the people who love them," he said. "To lose access to that would be devastating."

Mayors of several shore towns, including Long Beach Township, Avalon and Stone Harbor, praised the new approach, and indicated a willingness to work cooperatively with the DEP in drafting local access plans.

But officials acknowledge there is only so far they can push shore towns, noting that things like on-street parking ordinances, and rules on what can and can't be brought onto the beach remain under the control of local officials. DEP officials said they have begun working with towns that have long been the source of complaints, including Mantoloking, Sea Bright and Long Beach, to try to negotiate improvements instead of insisting on them.

The effort is bearing mixed fruit. Long Beach Township is adding about 135 new public parking spaces — but all but 15 or 20 are in the more densely populated southern part of town, and not in the much less crowded Loveladies or North Beach sections. That's where scores of signs warn outsiders to stay away, proclaiming "Private Drive, No Public Beach Access."

Long Beach Township, about 60 miles east of Philadelphia, constitutes 10 percent of New Jersey's coast, and has 168 public access points. Mayor Joseph Mancini says his town is doing more than its share of making the coast accessible to visitors, but says he doubts many will want to use Loveladies beaches because there are no public bathrooms or places to buy food or drinks.

During emotional public hearings on the plan, that sort of suggestion — these beaches over here are better for most people, while those over there are more suited for others — drew comparisons to segregation-era separate-but-equal policies involving segregated drinking fountains, schools and buses.

Lance Carsillo drove 150 miles round-trip from the Philadelphia suburbs and waited three hours to speak at the final public hearing, to ask New Jersey officials to reconsider their plan to give shore towns more power over public access.

"One-size-fits all is not a solution, but at least it's a guarantee for people like me who will probably never be able to afford an oceanfront home," he said. "Access is for people who can afford it, not people like me who drive and hour and a half to come fish."

Martin, the DEP commissioner, said the new rules are an attempt to apply "common sense" to a rulemaking system that always imposed a one-size fits all approach on a diverse shoreline.

"I'd much rather have a cooperative group of mayors than force them to do something," he said.

And that's what worries people like Woerner, the 36-year-old Asbury Park man who ran afoul of authorities as a 15-year-old surfer.

"We hear about `flexibility' and `common sense,'" he said. "You know where we heard a lot about that? When we deregulated the banks. How did that work out for America?"

___

Wayne Parry can be reached at http://twitter.com/WayneParryAC

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: Court overturns ban on video game sales to kids (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

Court overturns ban on video game sales to kids (AP)
27 Jun 2011, 6:26 pm

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional to bar children from buying or renting violent video games, saying government doesn't have the authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints that the popular and fast-changing technology allows the young to simulate acts of brutality.

On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Video game makers and sellers celebrated their victory, saying the decision puts them on the same legal footing as other forms of entertainment. "There now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music, and other expressive entertainment," said Bo Andersen, president and CEO of the Entertainment Merchants Association.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010. The video game industry has its own rating labeling system intended to warn parents, with the rating "M" placed on games that are considered to be especially violent.

But at least two justices, Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, indicated they would be willing to reconsider their votes throwing out the law, taking issue with the sweep of the court's holding.

"I would not squelch legislative efforts to deal with what is perceived by some to be a significant and developing social problem," Alito said, suggesting that a narrower state law might be upheld.

And an unlikely duo, conservative-leaning Clarence Thomas and liberal-leaning Stephen Breyer, agreed that the California video game ban should have been upheld, but for different reasons.

Breyer said the court's decision creates an insurmountable conflict in the First Amendment, especially considering that justices have upheld bans on the sale of pornography to children.

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said. "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?"

And Thomas said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.

"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.

Leland Yee, a child psychologist and California state senator who wrote the video game ban, told The Associated Press Monday that he was reading the dissents in hope of finding a way to reintroduce the law in a way it would be constitutional.

"It's disappointing the court didn't understand just how violent these games are," Yee told The AP.

California's 2005 law would have prohibited anyone under 18 from buying or renting games that give players the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Parents would have been able to buy the games for their children, but retailers who sell directly to minors would have faced fines of up to $1,000 for each game sold.

That means that children would have needed an adult to get games like "Postal 2," the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that features the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire. It would also apply to the popular "Grand Theft Auto IV," a third-person shoot-'em-up from Rockstar Games that allows gamers to portray carjacking, gun-toting gangsters.

The California law never took effect. Lower courts have said the law violates minors' constitutional rights, and that California lacked enough evidence to prove that violent games cause physical and psychological harm to minors. Courts in six other states, including Michigan and Illinois, reached similar conclusions, striking down similar bans.

Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said, there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said.

"Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added.

And there is no definitive proof that violent video games cause harm to children, or any more harm than another other form of entertainment, he said.

One doctor "admits that the same effects have been found when children watch cartoons starring Bugs Bunny or the Road Runner or when they play video games like Sonic the Hedgehog that are rated `E' or even when they `view a picture of a gun," Scalia said. "Of course, California has (wisely) declined to restrict Saturday morning cartoon, the sale of games rated for young children, or the distribution of pictures of guns."

Tim Winter, president of the Parents Television Council, said the decision created "a constitutional authorized end-run on parental authority."

"I wonder what other First Amendment right does a child have against their parents' wishes?" he said. "Does a child now have a constitutional right to bear arms if their parent doesn't want them to buy a gun? How far does this extend? It's certainly concerning to us that something as simple as requiring a parental oversight to purchase an adult product has been undermined by the court."

The case is Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 08-1448.

___

Associated Press Writer Paul Elias and Derrik J. Lang contributed to this story.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: China eyes Canada oil, US's energy nest egg (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

China eyes Canada oil, US's energy nest egg (AP)
26 Jun 2011, 7:36 pm

CALGARY, Alberta – In the northern reaches of Alberta lies a vast reserve of oil that the U.S. views as a pillar of its future energy needs.

China, with a growing appetite for oil that may one day surpass that of the U.S., is ready to spend the dollars for a big piece of it.

The oil sands of this Canadian province are so big that they will be able to serve both of the world's largest economies as production expands in the coming years. But that will mean building at least two pipelines, one south to the Texas Gulf Coast and another west toward the Pacific, and that in turn means fresh environmental battles on top of those already raging over the costly and energy-intensive method of extracting oil from sand.

Most believe that both will eventually be built. But if the U.S. doesn't approve its pipeline promptly, Canada might increasingly look to China, thinking America doesn't want a big stake share in what environmentalists call "dirty oil," which they say increases greenhouse gas emissions.

Alberta has the world's third largest oil reserves, more than 170 billion barrels. Daily production of 1.5 million barrels from the oil sands is expected to nearly triple to 3.7 million in 2025. Overall, Alberta has more oil than Russia or Iran. Only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela have more.

Alberta is one of the few places where oil companies can invest, as the majority of the world's oil reserves are controlled by national governments. Only 22 percent of the total world reserves are accessible to private sector investment, 52 percent of which is in Alberta's oil sands, according to the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers.

Canada's only major oil export market is the U.S. But with the product of oil sands and pipeline delivery to the U.S. under perennial clouds of environmental objections, and with Asian demand growing, this country wants to diversify its market, and China is eager to oblige.

Sinopec, a Chinese state-controlled oil company, has a stake in a $5.5 billion plan drawn up by the Alberta-based Enbridge company to build the Northern Gateway Pipeline from Alberta to the Pacific coast province of British Columbia. Alberta Finance Minister Lloyd Snelgrove met this month with Sinopec and CNOOC, China's other big oil company, and China's largest banks.

"They are sitting there saying if you need money, we've got money; if you need expertise, we've got that; whatever you need we've got," Snelgrove said.

Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach said American government officials have expressed concern about a pipeline to the Pacific. They have raised it in terms of "Well, are you still going to be able to supply us?" he said.

That fear may already have fallen aside.

"There are people who still feel that one barrel of oil going from Canada to China could be one more barrel going to the United States. But those are people in the minority. It is a concern but it is not a big concern," said Wenran Jiang, a professor at the University of Alberta and a senior fellow of the Asia Pacific Foundation.

Stelmach said the U.S. will remain Canada's primary oil customer.

But aboriginal and environmental opposition to the Pacific pipeline is fierce. The opponents fear it will leak. The local member of Parliament, Nathan Cullen, says accidents are inevitable in the rough waters around Kitimat, British Columbia, where the pipeline will end. And no one has forgotten the Exxon Valdez oil spill of 1989, some 1,300 kilometers (800 miles) north of Kitimat.

However, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, freshly and convincingly re-elected, is an oil man who has suggested he supports building the pipeline. Also, Calgary-based Kinder Morgan has plans to expand an existing pipeline route to Vancouver so that oil can be shipped to Asia.

Critics dislike the whole concept of oil sands, because extracting the oil requires huge amounts of energy and water, increases greenhouse gas emissions and threatens rivers and forests. Keystone XL, the pipeline that would bring Alberta oil to Texas Gulf Coast refineries to serve the U.S. market, compounds the issue.

Pipeline leaks can affect drinking water and sensitive ecosystems, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency warns. In a letter to the State Department this month, it cited major pipeline spills last year in Michigan and Illinois, as well as two leaks last month in the Keystone pipeline, a 1,300-mile line owned by the same company that wants to build Keystone XL. The U.S. pipeline safety agency briefly blocked Calgary-based TransCanada from restarting the Keystone pipeline this month because of safety concerns.

But Keystone XL could substantially reduce U.S. dependency on oil from the Middle East and other regions, according to a report commissioned by the Obama administration. It suggests that the pipeline, coupled with a reduction in overall U.S. oil demand, "could essentially eliminate Middle East crude imports longer term."

The U.S. imports about half its oil. The biggest foreign supplier is Canada, at 23.3 percent, followed by Venezuela at 10.7 percent. The biggest Mideast supplier is Saudi Arabia, 10.4 percent.

The report was made public ahead of President Barack Obama's meeting in February with Harper, who is urging Obama to endorse it.

Environmental groups want him to reject it, seeing it as a test of Obama's will to fight climate change.

The State Department, which must approve any pipeline entering the U.S. across an international border, has promised a decision by year's end. But Republicans on the House Energy and Commerce Committee want it by Nov. 1.

Committee chairman Fred Upton, R-Mich., said the pipeline will create at least 100,000 jobs and that the U.S. needs Canadian oil.

Michael A. Levi, the senior fellow for energy and the environment at the U.S. Council on Foreign Relations, said environmentalists are exaggerating the impact on the oil sands.

"A lot of people have been convinced that this is the cutting edge of the climate change fight," he said. "In the end this is the equivalent to half a percent of U.S. emissions."

He said the choice of pipeline was a critical decision in U.S-Canada relations and that turning down the Texas route would go over very badly in Canada.

But David Goldwyn, a former State Department energy official who left this year to work as a consultant, said he's confident the pipeline to Texas will be approved, especially considering the potential for Middle East turmoil to disrupt supplies in the future.

"I think it would be a huge waste of a great opportunity to provide supply security. We don't often get the choice of where we can get our oil from. In this case we get to choose Canada. That's an opportunity we shouldn't miss," he said in an interview.

He saw no threat from Chinese inroads into Canada because there is more than enough oil for all concerned.

By investing to boost Canadian production the Chinese "are growing the pie to meet their own demand. That's a whole lot better than mopping up supply from the existing pie and creating competition for resources," Goldwyn said.

But China would almost certainly react badly to a rebuff. Alberta Energy Minister Ron Liepert fears Chinese investment will dry up should Canada not approve a pipeline to the West Coast.

Zhang Junsai, China's ambassador to Canada, said his country is willing to invest heavily in Canada. He told The Associated Press that the fact that China's $300 billion sovereign wealth fund, China Investment Corp., chose Toronto as the venue for its first overseas office is a "very good sign." The fund invested $800 million in Calgary-based Penn West Energy last year and $1.5 billion in Canadian mining company Teck Resources in 2009.

Apart having a stake in the $5.5 billion in the Northern Gateway pipeline plan, Sinopec paid $4.6 billion for a nine percent stake in Syncrude, Canada's largest oil sands project. And in 2009 PetroChina, Asia's largest oil and gas company, bought a $1.7 billion stake in Athabasca Oil Sands Corp.

William Cohen, who was secretary of defense in the Clinton administration, said any Chinese-Canadian oil partnership must be done "with some diplomacy and care," in a way that isn't "a threat to the United States."

Canada can do whatever it wants, but "Canada knows it has a very close and vital relationship with the United States. I'm sure there will be discussions," he said in Toronto after a public debate about whether China will dominate the 21st century.

Eddie Goldenberg, chief of staff to former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, said in an interview that Canada should care less if some American officials are leery about Canada selling oil to China.

"We're not the 51st state. It's not the business of the United States to decide where Canada sells its resources," he said.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: Japan trips in key effort to cool nuclear reactors (Reuters)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

Japan trips in key effort to cool nuclear reactors (Reuters)
27 Jun 2011, 2:06 pm

TOKYO (Reuters) – The operator of Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear plant halted on Monday its new, glitch-prone system that is key to cooling down damaged reactors due to a water leakage, a setback in its efforts to avoid dumping highly contaminated water into the ocean.

Managing huge amounts of radioactive water, accumulated from efforts to cool down reactors damaged by a massive quake and tsunami in March, has been a major challenge for Tokyo Electric Power Co, and officials have said it could spill into the Pacific Ocean soon unless the system got under way.

Tokyo Electric (Tepco) hopes that the system, which removes radioactive materials from contaminated water and recycles it as a coolant for reactors, would help it reach its goal of bringing the plant to stability by next January.

The system, using technology from French nuclear group Areva and U.S. company Kurion, started running on Monday afternoon after having encountered multiple setbacks in test runs in the recent weeks.

Goshi Hosono, an adviser to Prime Minister Naoto Kan, praised the move as "a giant step forward" and told a news conference that the system is critical in two aspects.

"First, the system will solve the problem of contaminated water, which gave all sorts of worries to the world. Second, it will enable stable cooling of reactors," he said.

But an hour and a half later, it was stopped after workers found water leaking from hoses.

Reactors at the plant, on 240 km (150 miles) north of Tokyo, went into meltdown after the March 11 disaster knocked out their cooling systems. Thousands of residents remain in temporary housing after being evacuated from around the plant.

Tepco aims to complete initial steps to cut radiation leaks by mid-July, and to bring by January the reactors to a state of "cold shutdown," where the uranium at the core is no longer capable of boiling off the water used as a coolant.

The system is designed to handle 1,200 metric tones of water a day. Currently, about 110,000 metric tones of radioactive water, which is enough to fill 40 Olympic-size swimming pools, is stored at the plant and space is running out.

The utility expects processing the estimated 250,000 metric tones of water that will have been contaminated by the time the crisis ends to cost about 53 billion yen ($660 million).

"If you ask me whether I am still worried, I am," Hosono said. "But even if it does not function perfectly, if it can stably run with occasional inspections, then the stored water can be treated sufficiently."

Even if the system works, Tepco will face highly radioactive sludge left over from the decontamination process.

Japan upset neighboring China and South Korea in April after Tepco dumped low-level radioactive water into the sea.

Public fears about nuclear power have grown due to Fukushima crisis, and nearly 70 percent of Japanese oppose the restart of reactors halted for maintenance work, a poll by the Nikkei business daily showed.

(Editing by Michael Watson and Yoko Nishikawa)

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: In NY, gay marriage law brings wedding plans (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

In NY, gay marriage law brings wedding plans (AP)
27 Jun 2011, 11:34 am

NEW YORK – It was a weekend of wedding proposals, wedding plans and earnest thanks. The hard-won right to same-sex marriage in New York state gave way to joyous thoughts of trips down the aisle becoming a reality, not just a dream, for many thousands of gay couples.

"New York has sent a message to the nation," Gov. Andrew Cuomo said Sunday before the colorful extravaganza that is New York City's annual gay pride parade. "It is time for marriage equality."

When Cuomo signed the gay marriage bill just before midnight Friday, New York became the sixth and largest state in the country to legalize gay marriage, reinvigorating the national gay rights movement that had stalled over a nearly identical bill in New York two years ago. The 33-29 vote by the state Senate followed days of contentious negotiations, the courting of undecided Republicans and opposition from influential religious groups. Pending any court challenges, the law takes effect in 30 days.

"We've been waiting to get married in Central Park for years, and now we got here just in time for history to be made," said Bryce Croft of Kettering, Ohio, who attended the parade festivities with her partner, Stephanie Croft.

The two women are not yet legally married although they share the same name, and they are in the process of moving to New York and getting married. They were in a Manhattan restaurant late Friday when they learned that the bill had passed.

"We cried over dinner, right into the mozzarella sticks," Stephanie Croft said, adding that they had already selected a spot in Central Park — the boulder she had marked with Bryce's name two years ago.

As he joined the parade procession, John Haracopos wore a T-shirt that declared, "Some dudes marry other dudes. Get over it." He and his partner regard the new law as a legal rubber-stamping of what they did years ago.

"We got married in the oldest church in Paris. And it was just us and God," said Haracopos, a 46-year-old hair stylist. Still, the pair plans to hold another ceremony in New York to ensure their relationship is fully recognized by the law.

His partner, Peter Marinos, a 59-year-old Broadway actor, wore a T-shirt of his own that said, "Marriage is so gay."

"Thank you, Governor Cuomo" and "Promise kept" read signs lining both sides of Manhattan's Fifth Avenue.

"I'm really, really proud of New York," said Hannah Thielmann, a student at Fordham University in the Bronx who attended with her girlfriend, Christine Careaga.

The couple, both 20, were dressed as brides, with Careaga in a white veil and Thielmann wearing a black top hat and a sash that said, "Bride to Be."

Careaga said her mother called her crying tears of joy after the New York Senate voted on the marriage bill.

"Every mother wants her child to be happily married," Careaga said.

Same-sex marriage licenses also are granted by Connecticut, Iowa, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Vermont, plus Washington, D.C., and the Coquille Indian Tribe in Oregon.

"This year's gay parade is different — it's electric!" said Mayor Michael Bloomberg's longtime companion, Diana Taylor. "You can really feel it, it's so exciting."

Cuomo marched with his girlfriend, Food Network personality Sandra Lee, Bloomberg and openly gay elected officials, including New York City Council Speaker Christine Quinn and state Assemblyman Daniel O'Donnell — Rosie O'Donnell's gay brother — who introduced the bill last month.

Police Commissioner Ray Kelly marched at the head of a group of gay NYPD officers, right behind the official police band. At the end of the parade, a female officer proposed publicly to her fiancee, also an officer, who accepted. They quickly vanished into the crowd.

New York's parade ended near the site where gays rebelled against authorities and repressive laws outside the Stonewall Inn in Greenwich Village on June 28, 1969 — an event that gave rise to the gay rights movement.

"If New York can do it, it's all right for everyone else in the country to do it," Cuomo said before the parade.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: Cambodian tribunal tries Khmer Rouge leaders (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

Cambodian tribunal tries Khmer Rouge leaders (AP)
27 Jun 2011, 11:33 am

PHNOM PENH, Cambodia – Now old and infirm, the four top surviving leaders of Cambodia's brutal Khmer Rouge regime went on trial before a U.N.-backed court for the first time Monday, facing justice three decades after their plan for a communist utopia left an estimated 1.7 million people dead.

Security was tight at the U.N. backed tribunal, with dozens of police on guard and 500 spectators — the majority victims of the 1975-79 regime_ watching from the gallery.

With Khmer Rouge leader Pol Pot long dead, this may be the nation's best chance to hold the accused architects of the "killing fields" and the enslavement of millions of Cambodians accountable, though all four say they are innocent.

On trial Monday are 84-year-old Nuon Chea, who was Pol Pot's No. 2 and the group's chief ideologist; 79-year-old former head of state Khieu Samphan; ex-foreign minister Ieng Sary, 85; and his 79-year-old wife, Ieng Thirith, who served as minister for social affairs.

The tribunal's chief judge, Nil Nonn, opened the court session and was expected to read out charges against the four that included crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, religious persecution, homicide and torture.

The four accused sat side by side, without handcuffs, their faces obscured behind a curtain.

Together, they form what the tribunal calls Case 002. The chief jailer of a notorious Khmer Rouge prison was convicted last year in the breakthrough Case 001. Political and financial pressures on the tribunal are raising doubts over whether there will ever be a Case 003.

Although this week's court sessions will be strictly procedural, with testimony and presentation of evidence expected to begin in August or September, it will mark the first joint appearance of the defendants in court, 32 years after the Khmer Rouge were kicked out of power in 1979 with the help of a Vietnamese invasion and for more than a decade waged a bloody insurgency against the Phnom Penh government.

Pol Pot escaped justice with his death in 1998, then a prisoner of his own comrades as his once-mighty guerrilla movement, in jungle retreat, was collapsing.

The tribunal, officially known as the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, started operations in 2006. Its first defendant was Kaing Guek Eav, also known as Duch, commandant of Tuol Sleng prison, where only a handful of prisoners survived. Up to 16,000 people were tortured under Duch's command and later taken away to be killed.

Duch, now 68, was sentenced to 35 years in prison for war crimes and crimes against humanity. His sentence was reduced to a 19-year term because of time previously served and other technicalities, bringing angry criticism from victims who called the punishment too lenient. Cambodia has no death penalty.

Alex Hinton, an anthropology professor at Rutgers University and author of a book about atrocities in Cambodia, says Duch's case had "enormous symbolic value" because the prison was so closely associated with the horrors of the Khmer Rouge. But Case 002 "is more significant in that it will put the four most senior surviving Khmer Rouge leaders on trial for the first time."

"We will learn much about their thinking, the way their regime worked, and, ultimately, how their program of mass murder was enabled and unfolded," he says.

Despite the notoriety of the Khmer Rouge, proving the case may pose a challenge.

Duch expressed remorse, acknowledged responsibility for his actions and kept meticulous prison records that were mostly recovered when the Khmer Rouge fled Phnom Penh, the capital. The paper trial in Case 002 is less solid, and the defendants have not been as accommodating.

In previous public statements, they have tried to cast blame on others, such as the Vietnamese, who supposedly committed atrocities when they invaded, or Pol Pot himself, conveniently dead.

"Do I have remorse? No," said Ieng Sary in 1996, after he led a mass defection to the government. "I have no regrets because this was not my responsibility."

Ieng Sary, whose wife was the sister of Pol Pot's wife, blamed Khmer Rouge atrocities on the group's leader. He said he was a secondary figure who was excluded from Pol Pot's secret security committee, which decided policy and who would be executed.

The four defendants had lived freely before being taken into tribunal custody in 2007, often living in former Khmer Rouge strongholds. All are being held at a custom built jail in the same compound as the tribunal's headquarters and courtroom.

This trial may be the tribunal's last, even though preliminary cases have been prepared against at least five more suspects. In recent months, it has been mired in controversy over what critics charge is an effort by the co-investigating judges — from Cambodia and Germany — to scuttle further prosecutions.

The process has always suffered from budgetary pressures, even though it will have spent almost $150 million from its start in 2006 until the end of this year.

More importantly, Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen, presumably wary that political allies who once served with the Khmer Rouge — as he himself did_ could face prosecution, has declared he simply won't allow more trials.

While the Cambodian members of the tribunal's legal team have long been seen as susceptible to pressure from their government, co-investigating Judge Siegfried Blunk's agreeing to cut short investigations into Case 003 has raised hackles among human rights activists and other tribunal staff members, including some who appealed it to higher authorities and others who quietly resigned in protest.

"The current controversy in the court could lead to questioning by the public, which, added to the complexity and length of the procedures, may create fatigue and perhaps a kind of cynical reaction in front of what many people consider as an outside political interference," warns Kek Galabru of the Cambodian human rights organization Licadho. "Unfortunately, this could undermine the reputation of the court."

Andrew Cayley, the British co-prosecutor, says the process has taken a long time out of necessity.

"Justice has been delayed because the Khmer Rouge went on fighting the government until the late 1990s. It took 20 years to get a point where real trials could even be considered and then Cambodia needed help," he said.

"Its legal system was in ruins with few qualified lawyers left — most had been murdered by the Khmer Rouge — and yet they took the very courageous step of having these trials and addressing the past.

"That's hope. For all of us."

___

Associated Press writer Grant Peck in Bangkok contributed to this report.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: How China's Public Officials Stole $120 Billion and Fled (Time.com)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

How China's Public Officials Stole $120 Billion and Fled (Time.com)
27 Jun 2011, 10:15 am

This post is in partnership with Worldcrunch, a new global-news site that translates stories of note in foreign languages into English. The article below was originally published in The Economic Observer.

(BEIJING) - Just how many corrupt Chinese government officials have fled overseas? How much money have they stashed away? And how did they manage to transfer such colossal sums abroad?

Last week the Bank of China published a report entitled "How corrupt officials transfer assets overseas, and a study of monitoring." The report quoted statistics based on research by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Since 1990, the number of Communist Party and government officials, public security members, judicial cadres, agents of State institutions, and senior management figures of state-owned enterprises fleeing China has reached nearly 18,000. Also missing is about 800 billion yuan (more than $120 billion). (See photos of the flooding in China.)

The Bank of China emphasized the fact that nobody, up to now, has been able to provide an authoratitive figure of the exact sum pilfered, and the recent figure of 800 billion yuan is only an estimate. It is nonetheless an astronomical sum. It is equivalent to China's total financial allocation for education from 1978 to 1998. Each official stole, on average, an estimated 50 million yuan (more than $7 million). Precisely because this is only an estimate, one can imagine the real numbers are actually much bigger. Some media have reported that the wife of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Ministry of Railways, Zhang Shuguang, recently caught for corruption, owns three luxury mansions in Los Angeles, and has bank savings of as much as $2.8 billion in America and Switzerland. This gives a glimpse of the broader picture.

The number of corrupt officials fleeing China is a sign of the seriousness of the government's attempt to tackle corruption. But if corruption, dereliction of duty and the abuse of power are the norm, then this escape of corrupt officials represents the corruption within a corrupt system. It highlights multiple embarrassments in China's anti-corruption campaign.

From the initial corruption to organizing the smuggling of large sums of money abroad takes some time. For someone to be corrupt during this time without being caught, this is the first embarrassment. (See photos of China's transit system.)

Next, when a corrupt official prepares his flight, he usually starts by sending his wife and children overseas, and stays alone in China as a so-called "naked official." To have such "naked, yet unexposed" officials makes for a second embarrassment.

In a country where capital outflow is strictly controlled, how on earth do these people manage to transfer their money overseas successfully? This is the third embarrassment.

And the fourth embarassment? How they manage to change their identity. These crooks usually hold multiple passports and use many identities. For instance, the former Governor of Yunnan Province, Li Jiating, had five passports, all real.

How they escape punishment adds the fifth embarrassment. Extradition involves the political and judicial systems of two countries, each with its own concept of law enforcement. The judicial procedure is often complicated and tedious. Extradition is very often obstructed by the fact that a person condemned to death in absentia cannot be extradited for human rights reasons. In addition, China has not signed extradition treaties with the main destinations, the U.S. or Canada, so once the official has run away, the chance of catching him and putting him on trial is near zero. (See photos of the panda people of China.)

Even if they do get caught, the stolen funds are rarely recovered. This is the sixth embarrassment. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption sets out the principle of returning illegal assets, but in practice the procedure is difficult. Not only does China have to show that it owns the assets, it also has to share some of the money with all countries participating in the joint action. After deductions here and there, there won't be much left.

And, finally, the seventh embarrassment: the government officials who have managed to escape set an example for those still hiding at home. Some used to hold high positions with access to important state secrets, and were very likely bribed by hostile forces. This is a potential threat to China's political, military and economic stability.

It is for these reasons that it is more important to stop corruption at the source than to catch the culprits after it has happened.

Policies combatting money laundering or obliging leading government employees to report their personal wealth will not solve this problem. Nor will the close monitoring of so-called "naked officials". The efficient solution would be to establish a clean system where nobody dares to become corrupt. Certain media have suggested the implementation of a property declaration system. This would be like using anti-aircraft guns to fight mosquitoes. Still, at least it is a weapon that knows its target.

Also from Worldcrunch:

Human Trafficking in the Middle East
- Die Welt

Food Safety Scares in China Prompt Government to Choke Press Freedom
- Economic Observer

Surviving a Night in Zurich's Worst Hotel
- Tages Anzeiger

Should you put your money in a Chinese bank account?

The 25 All-TIME Best Animated Features.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: Nighttime or violent TV tied to tots' sleep woes (AP)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

Nighttime or violent TV tied to tots' sleep woes (AP)
27 Jun 2011, 8:44 am

CHICAGO – If your preschooler can't sleep — turn off the violence and nighttime TV.

That's the message in a new study that found sleep problems are more common in 3- to 5-year-olds who watch television after 7 p.m. Watching shows with violence — including kids' cartoons — also was tied to sleeping difficulties.

Watching nonviolent shows during the day didn't seem to have any connection with sleep problems in the 617 youngsters studied.

The study builds on previous research linking media use with kids' sleep problems, and also bolsters arguments for limiting children's screen time.

The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends no screen time for children up to age 2, and no more than 2 hours daily for older children. It also urges pediatricians to ask parents at every checkup how much their children watch television, including whether kids have TVs in their bedrooms, which the academy discourages.

Previous studies have found that at least one in four U.S. preschoolers have TVs in their bedrooms, and many families mistakenly believe that watching TV will help their kids sleep, said Dr. Michelle Garrison, lead author and a scientist at Seattle Children's Hospital Research Institute.

The government-funded study was released online Monday by the journal Pediatrics.

Overall, about 112 kids studied — nearly one in five — had one or more frequent sleep problems most days of the week. These included difficulty falling asleep, awakening repeatedly at night, nightmares, or daytime sleepiness.

Kids who watched the most nighttime or violent TV had the most sleep trouble. TV was the main source of screen time rather than computers or video games.

The study relied on parents' reports of kids' sleep difficulties and TV habits, and wasn't rigorous enough to tell whether TV caused sleep problems. It could be that poor sleepers might be more likely to watch TV; or family factors such as lax parenting could have been involved.

Experts said the theory that screen time causes sleep problems makes sense.

Dr. Dennis Rosen, a sleep medicine specialist at Children's Hospital Boston, said the research highlights a common problem.

"It certainly fits with what I see" at his sleep disorders clinic, Rosen said.

Young children go to sleep best with nighttime rituals that help calm them, including bedtime stories and cuddling with parents, said Dr. Marc Weissbluth, a sleep disorders specialist at Chicago's Children's Memorial Hospital and author of several books on healthy sleep habits.

TV can have the opposite effect, stimulating children, and if it's replacing that down time with parents, it can be unhealthy, Weissbluth said.

While some preschoolers still nap during the day, sleepiness late in the day or early evening at this age is a sign that children need to go to bed earlier at night, he said.

Lack of sleep "is as dangerous as iron deficiency" and can cause behavior difficulties, memory problems and academic struggles, he said.

Some findings for the children studied:

• Daily screen time averaged about 73 minutes, with 14 minutes after 7 p.m.

• Children with bedroom TVs watched about 40 minutes more TV daily

• About 60 kids averaged an hour or more daily of violent TV; 37 percent had frequent sleep problems vs. 19 percent who saw little or no violence.

• Almost 100 kids averaged more than half an hour of nighttime TV; 28 percent had frequent sleep problems vs. 19 percent who watched little or no nighttime TV.

Banning all screen time for children may be unreasonable, but the study suggests that just eliminating nighttime or violent TV might have an impact, Garrison said.

___

Online:

American Academy of Pediatrics: http://www.aap.org

____

AP Medical Writer Lindsey Tanner can be reached at http://www.twitter.com/LindseyTanner

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.

Yahoo! News: Most Popular: China's Great Swindle: How Public Officials Stole $120 Billion and Fled the Country (Time.com)

Yahoo! News: Most Popular
Most Popular

China's Great Swindle: How Public Officials Stole $120 Billion and Fled the Country (Time.com)
27 Jun 2011, 8:15 am

This post is in partnership with Worldcrunch, a new global-news site that translates stories of note in foreign languages into English. The article below was originally published in The Economic Observer.

(BEIJING) - Just how many corrupt Chinese government officials have fled overseas? How much money have they stashed away? And how did they manage to transfer such colossal sums abroad?

Last week the Bank of China published a report entitled "How corrupt officials transfer assets overseas, and a study of monitoring." The report quoted statistics based on research by the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. Since 1990, the number of Communist Party and government officials, public security members, judicial cadres, agents of State institutions, and senior management figures of state-owned enterprises fleeing China has reached nearly 18,000. Also missing is about 800 billion yuan (more than $120 billion). (See photos of the flooding in China.)

The Bank of China emphasized the fact that nobody, up to now, has been able to provide an authoratitive figure of the exact sum pilfered, and the recent figure of 800 billion yuan is only an estimate. It is nonetheless an astronomical sum. It is equivalent to China's total financial allocation for education from 1978 to 1998. Each official stole, on average, an estimated 50 million yuan (more than $7 million). Precisely because this is only an estimate, one can imagine the real numbers are actually much bigger. Some media have reported that the wife of the Deputy Chief Engineer of the Ministry of Railways, Zhang Shuguang, recently caught for corruption, owns three luxury mansions in Los Angeles, and has bank savings of as much as $2.8 billion in America and Switzerland. This gives a glimpse of the broader picture.

The number of corrupt officials fleeing China is a sign of the seriousness of the government's attempt to tackle corruption. But if corruption, dereliction of duty and the abuse of power are the norm, then this escape of corrupt officials represents the corruption within a corrupt system. It highlights multiple embarrassments in China's anti-corruption campaign.

From the initial corruption to organizing the smuggling of large sums of money abroad takes some time. For someone to be corrupt during this time without being caught, this is the first embarrassment. (See photos of China's transit system.)

Next, when a corrupt official prepares his flight, he usually starts by sending his wife and children overseas, and stays alone in China as a so-called "naked official." To have such "naked, yet unexposed" officials makes for a second embarrassment.

In a country where capital outflow is strictly controlled, how on earth do these people manage to transfer their money overseas successfully? This is the third embarrassment.

And the fourth embarassment? How they manage to change their identity. These crooks usually hold multiple passports and use many identities. For instance, the former Governor of Yunnan Province, Li Jiating, had five passports, all real.

How they escape punishment adds the fifth embarrassment. Extradition involves the political and judicial systems of two countries, each with its own concept of law enforcement. The judicial procedure is often complicated and tedious. Extradition is very often obstructed by the fact that a person condemned to death in absentia cannot be extradited for human rights reasons. In addition, China has not signed extradition treaties with the main destinations, the U.S. or Canada, so once the official has run away, the chance of catching him and putting him on trial is near zero. (See photos of the panda people of China.)

Even if they do get caught, the stolen funds are rarely recovered. This is the sixth embarrassment. The United Nations Convention Against Corruption sets out the principle of returning illegal assets, but in practice the procedure is difficult. Not only does China have to show that it owns the assets, it also has to share some of the money with all countries participating in the joint action. After deductions here and there, there won't be much left.

And, finally, the seventh embarrassment: the government officials who have managed to escape set an example for those still hiding at home. Some used to hold high positions with access to important state secrets, and were very likely bribed by hostile forces. This is a potential threat to China's political, military and economic stability.

It is for these reasons that it is more important to stop corruption at the source than to catch the culprits after it has happened.

Policies combatting money laundering or obliging leading government employees to report their personal wealth will not solve this problem. Nor will the close monitoring of so-called "naked officials". The efficient solution would be to establish a clean system where nobody dares to become corrupt. Certain media have suggested the implementation of a property declaration system. This would be like using anti-aircraft guns to fight mosquitoes. Still, at least it is a weapon that knows its target.

Also from Worldcrunch:

Human Trafficking in the Middle East
- Die Welt

Food Safety Scares in China Prompt Government to Choke Press Freedom
- Economic Observer

Surviving a Night in Zurich's Worst Hotel
- Tages Anzeiger

Should you put your money in a Chinese bank account?

The 25 All-TIME Best Animated Features.

View this article on Time.com

Most Popular on Time.com:

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed.