Saturday 20 February 2016

Hundreds gather in downtown L . A to support convicted New York cop Peter Liang

        Protesters gather across from Los Angeles Police Department headquarters Saturday to rally in support of Peter Liang, a New York police officer convicted of manslaughter in the deadly 2014 shooting of an unarmed black man .


Los Angeles - Hundreds of demonstrators gathered in downtown Los Angeles on Saturday, carrying signs and chanting in support of a New York City police officer convicted in a deadly shooting.

The crowd, which was predominantly Chinese American, was one of many that rallied in cities across the U.S. on Saturday to protest the conviction of Peter Liang, who is also Chinese American.

Liang was found guilty of manslaughter earlier this month in the 2014 killing of Akai Gurley, an unarmed black man who died from a ricochet bullet that the rookie cop fired in the stairwell of a Brooklyn housing project.

The deadly encounter was one of many in recent months that drew heightened scrutiny amid the heated national debate over how police officers use force, particularly against African American men.

In Los Angeles, demonstrators chanted Liang's name Saturday as they circled the sidewalks in front of City Hall. Cars drove slowly down the surrounding streets, horns honking as supporters held signs out of the windows. At one point, a black-and-white LAPD cruiser whooped its siren in front of the crowd, drawing cheers.

Supporters held signs plastered with slogans written in English and Chinese: "Save Peter Liang," "Accident not crime" and "All lives matter."

Fliers handed out by demonstrators expressed "the deepest condolences" for Gurley's family. But, supporters wrote, they were "equally saddened by the selective and unjust prosecution of Peter Liang, who is made the scapegoat of the police brutality that has long troubled our society."

Xiayi Shirley Zhang, a 27-year-old who lives downtown, stood in front of the LAPD's headquarters, watching the larger group across the street. "Scapegoat" was written in Chinese on one side of her sign.

Zhang questioned why Liang was convicted when so many other high-profile police shootings were "far more obviously" questionable. She also wondered why the NYPD put the inexperienced officer in a high-crime neighborhood.

"It is a tragedy," she said of the fatal shooting. "But to us, with the criminal conviction, the system let us down, let Peter down."

Zhang said she was glad to see "the Asian community showing our muscle," but emphasized that their goal was to promote fairness for everyone, regardless of race.

"It should matter for anyone. It shouldn't just matter for Asians," she said. "Really, all of us are fighting for a fair and just system."

Ken Jun Meng, who lives in Rowland Heights, agreed that Gurley's death was a tragedy, especially for the man's family. But convicting Liang, he said, only made the situation worse.

"Don't make another tragedy. Don't make another sad story," he said. "We came down here for justice."
Sunday , 21 February 2016

Trump wins South Carolina primary Cruz and Rubio battle for second as Bush quits the race

                                                                  Donal Trump

 New York - Donald Trump rode a week of insults directed at a popular pope and a GOP president to trounce his opponents in the South Carolina Republican presidential primary Saturday, the most convincing evidence to date that his establishment-smashing campaign is on track to win the nomination.

None of Trump's rivals came close to knocking him off Saturday, despite – or perhaps because of – his position at the center of one of the most polarizing campaign weeks in recent history.
“There’s nothing easy about running for president, I can tell you,” Trump told a cheering crowd in Spartanburg, S.C., late Saturday. "It’s tough. It’s nasty. It’s mean. It’s vicious. It’s beautiful. When you win, it’s beautiful, and we are going to start winning for our country.”
On the other end of the spectrum was the night's biggest casualty, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, who quit the race after months of limping along in Trump's shadow and as the target of much of Trump's derision.



"I'm proud of the campaign we've run," Bush told supporters. "But the people of Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina have spoken."
With about one-third of the ballots counted, Trump had about 33% of the vote. Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, also running as a party agitator, was running just barely ahead of Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida for second place.

As he has throughout the campaign, Trump dominated the vote of Republicans without a college education and those with incomes below $100,000. College graduates were closely divided among backers of Trump, Cruz and Rubio. Those with incomes above $100,000 split their vote between Trump and Rubio, the exit poll indicated.

Almost the only significant demographic group that did not go for Trump were those who called themselves "very conservative," who sided with Cruz.

About half of voters did not make their decision until the last week, the exit poll indicated.
Kevin Holley was still undecided midday Saturday between Trump and Rubio as he headed to a poll in Edgefield, the birthplace of the late Sen. Strom Thurmond.

"We need change," Holley said.

Trump has "a little spoiled brat" in him, but Rubio "flip-flops too much," said Holley, a technician.
For his part, Bush entered the race last year as the front-runner and immediately attracted more funding and high-profile endorsements than any other candidate in what was once a field of more than a dozen.
But voters already in Iowa and New Hampshire and in repeated polls this election season were not looking for another Bush, nor have they paid much mind to the wonkish candidate’s detailed policy proposals that harked back to the conservative ideals he championed as a two-term governor a decade ago.

South Carolina not only ended his candidacy, it may also signal the end of his family’s long hold on the Republican Party.

Trump attacked Bush relentlessly as “low energy,” and he shattered taboos during last weekend’s debate when he accused his brother, President George W. Bush, of lying to bring the country to war in Iraq and failing to keep the country safe from the Sept. 11 attacks.

The Bush family had long counted on South Carolina voters to hoist them in tough times, and Jeb Bush campaigned throughout the week with both his 90-year-old mother, Barbara, and his brother, the former president.

“I feel sorry for Bush,” said Rick Arkell of Columbia, a retired weather forecaster. “He has the wrong last name.”

Trump did not only spar with Bush’s legacy this week. He also took on Pope Francis over immigration and Trump’s oft-stated goal of building a border wall to stop illegal immigration from Mexico. Francis had asserted to reporters, “A person who only thinks about building walls, wherever they may be, and not building bridges, is not Christian.”

Trump did not come close to backing down, calling Francis’ comments “disgraceful,” and insisting that the pontiff would pray for a Trump presidency “if and when the Vatican is attacked by ISIS," using another name for the Islamic State militant group.

Trump’s voters seemed to lap it all up, becoming more devoted to him with each fight. As one of them said in an interview this week, “We’re voting with our middle finger.”

"Enough bull," said another supporter, Wayne Wates, a retired butcher on his way in to vote for Trump in Edgefield on Saturday. "He's going to change things, I hope."

The sound of gunfire at a nearby range could be heard outside the hall. Just down the road, the central plaza in the town where the high school is named for Thurmond, bustled with activity.

 Trump continues to alienate large groups of voters — 40% of all voters polled in a national Fox News poll conducted this week said Trump was the candidate they would most dread watching on television for the next four years.

Yet he maintains seemingly unflappable support from about a third of the Republican electorate. Challengers are hoping that gives them a one-on-one opening.
But two factors could conspire to give Trump the nomination.

First, his challengers continue to find reasons to remain in the race, and the longer the field remains crowded, the harder it is for any one of them to attract more voters than Trump in a given state. In fact, one of Rubio’s main arguments is “the longer this goes on, the worse it’s going to be,” and therefore he is the candidate who can unify the party.

Second, polls show an increasing number of Republicans have become comfortable with Trump leading the party’s ticket in the November general election. In the Fox Poll, 74% of Republicans said they would be at least somewhat satisfied with Trump as president. That number was far smaller (43%) among all voters.

To beat back Trump, Cruz, who won the Iowa caucuses, will need to pick up wins in a slew of Southern state primaries held March 1, and hope other contenders drop out.

Though retired neurosurgeon Ben Carson has drawn little support, his Christian conservative followers may flock to Cruz. But the Texas senator ultimately will have to persuade more voters to embrace his pure form of conservatism and reject Trump as a phony, a case he has been trying to make for weeks.

ubio, who was helped by his endorsement this week from South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, has a different challenge. He needs Bush to drop out, and Ohio Gov. John Kasich to lose the confidence of mainstream Republicans. But the Florida senator also will have to begin winning states, and hope that a majority of Republicans decide they want a more mainstream candidate, despite polls showing voters are looking for candidates who have not served in government.

Hunter Pendarvis knows he is fighting a losing battle, but he still voted for Rubio as the Republican candidate he believes is the best alternative to Trump. Pendarvis, a 30-year-old real estate agent who moved back home after living in New York City, hopes Rubio can pick up some momentum after Saturday's primary and the race shifts into other Southern states.

"It's going to be a long slog," he said
Sunday, 21 February 2016


India to Change Its Decades - Old Reliance on Female Sterilization

    Women  lined up for examinations this month before sterilization surgery at a government hospital in Mahendragarh, India.


 MAHENDRAGARH, India — This is what family planning in India often looks like: Women in their 20s, mostly farmers’ wives, gather at dawn on the stairs of a district hospital. Hours later, a surgeon arrives. His time is short.  He asks the women to sit in a row on the floor of the operating room and then, in operations lasting a few minutes apiece, uses a laparoscope to sever their fallopian tubes, ensuring they will never again bear a child.

 For decades, India has relied on female sterilization as its primary mode of contraception, funding about four million tubal ligations every year, more than any other country. This year, the government of Prime Minister Narendra Modiwill take a major step toward modernizing that system, introducing injectable contraceptives free of charge in government facilities. The World Health Organization recommends their use without restriction for women of child bearing age.

 New birth control options have long been advocated by international organizations, among them the United States Agency for International Development and theBill & Melinda Gates Foundation. They say Indian women — often worn out, anemic and at higher risk of death because they bear children young and often — urgently need methods to delay or space pregnancies.

 The number of lives touched by such policies is enormous and growing. India will soon surpass China as the world’s most populous nation, and by 2050 it is expected to gain 400 million new citizens, more than the population of the United StatesParadoxically, here in India, the keenest opposition to these newer methods of birth control— ones seen in the West as empowering women to control their fertility — has come from some women’s activist groups that distrust the safety of these methods and believe that profit-hungry Western pharmaceutical companies are pushing them. Despite growing evidence of the safety of the injectables and their increasingly widespread use across South Asia, these groups have continued to oppose them. And it is Mr. Modi’s socially conservative Bharatiya Janata Party that has broken with decades of resistance to injectables.

The shift in policy has come in part because the government is less concerned about opposition from civil society groups, most of them more closely aligned with the previous ruling party, the Indian National Congress. Officials were also spurred by a medical disaster in the Indian state of Chhattisgarh, where 13 women died in 2014 after under going tubal ligation at a high-volume government “sterilization camp.”


“I thought it was incumbent on the government to provide it as a choice,” said C.K. Mishra, additional secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, of the contraceptive Depot medroxyprogesterone acetate, or DMPA, which has been used in the private sector since 1993.  Still, the method will be introduced gingerly, limited at first to select district hospitals and medical colleges and then expanded next year to hospitals throughout the country. Implanted contraceptives may follow.

“We want to be very careful,” Mr. Mishra said. “We don’t want to put a single step wrong.

”In the context of India’s recent history, it is no wonder officials have been risk-averse and advocates mistrustful. In 1975, the government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi led an aggressive campaign, in some cases forcing young or childless men to undergo vasectomies to meet quotas. More than six million sterilizations were performed, ignitinga widespread protest movement.


More than a decade later, when India began exploring the public use of injectable contraceptives, activist groups filed cases with the country’s Supreme Court seeking to ban the drugs, contending that they had not been proved safe and could be used coercively.

The court forwarded the matter to India’s Drug Technical Advisory Board, which in 1995 allowed private use to continue but recommended against offering them in government clinics. The decision was not revisited for 20 years, even as use of the method became widespread in neighboring Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Nepal.

 Opponents contend that India’s health infrastructure is too weak to regulate use of the drugs, monitor side effects or ensure that patients have given informed consent. India’s government spends just over 1 percent of its gross domestic producton public health, compared with around 3 percent in Russia and China and 8 percent in the United States.

 “Invariably these new methods are tried on women who have no infrastructure to fall back on, who have no other resources to go for private health care,” said Navsharan Singh, a senior program specialist at the International Development Research Center, which is financed by the government of Canada. She said the current plan, to deliver the drugs through major hospitals, improved the prospects for follow-up.

Some opposition is tinged with ideology, with critics tracing American support for population control back to a Cold War era when they say birth control was seen as a way to combat poverty and to stop the spread of Communism by curbing chronic poverty. Mohan Rao, a professor of social sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University and long time opponent of injectables, said the government would have introduced them years ago were it not for India’s “mass-based women’s organizations.” He added, “They had a clear analysis of what is imperialism and what imperialism does to populations in third-world countries.

”In 2010, K. Sujatha Rao, then the union secretary in the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare in the Congress-led government, recommended lifting the ban on injectable contraceptives. But she left her post shortly there after, she said, and “because of civil society pressure, when I left, the government didn’t push it at all.

The atmosphere around injectable contraceptives began to shift after Mr. Modi’s party took over in May 2014, and it gained momentum after the Chhattisgarh catastrophe, about six months later. Last year, “All the stars aligned,” said Dr. Jyoti Vajpayee, a gynecologist who oversees family planning programs here for the Gates Foundation

“This government has come back in a majority, so they can afford to take risks,” she said

She and others had long sought to convince officials that existing options — male and female sterilization, the pill, IUDs and condoms— were insufficient for millions of Indian women who marry in their late teens and spend years carrying back-to-back pregnancies.

Research has shown that, globally, 30 percent of maternal deaths and 10 percent of child deaths could be prevented if women spaced their pregnancies two years apart.

At a meeting in August, the Drug Technical Advisory Board recommended that DMPA be included in the family planning program, saying 20 years of private use and studies of similar drugs by the Indian Council for Medical Research had established that they were safe to introduce without a pilot program

Dr. C. N. Purandare, past president of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynecological Societies of India and a proponent of the drugs, praised the government for what he called “a bold step.”

Not that the traditional method is being phased out. . At a recent sterilization camp about 90 miles west of Delhi, a time-honoredsystem was chugging along.

The women here, many of whom had traveled from their villages, said that they were eager to go for “the operation,” and thatthe cash incentive of 1,400 rupees, about $20, had not affected their decision. They hadbeen urged on by outreach workers who had accompanied them to the camp, older women from their own villages.

These women are paid 1,000 rupees for eachpatient with two or fewer children who comes in for sterilization and 240 rupees for each patient with three or more. They admitted that there were drawbacks to sterilization, especially for young women who might someday want to have another child

“We have to tell them a lot of things to convince them,” said Sudesh Wati, 50

Young women often listen to the outreach workers

“After she spoke to me, I made up my mind that in today’s times, nobody wants more than two children,” said Krishna Yadav, 35, gesturing at an amiable gray-haired woman standing nearby. “She has been telling me this for the last two months

Asked about injectable contraceptives, the women mostly looked blank. They had never heard of them

In any case, said Lalit Sharma, a nurse who trains outreach workers, when a new methodcomes online, women will almost certainly accept it

“Whatever method it might be,” he said, “if the government implements it, they blindly trust it"
 Sunday, 21 February 2016


Tropical Cyclone Winston batters Fiji



 Fiji - The most powerful storm on record in the Southern Hemisphere slammed straight into Fiji late Saturday, delivering the first crushing blows of a pounding that is expected to last for days on the tiny island nation. 

The Joint Typhoon Warning Center estimated Tropical Cyclone Winston's winds reached 184 mph in the hours before it made landfall about 7 p.m. Saturday (2 a.m. ET).

"Winston was a monster of a cyclone," Fiji resident Nazeem Kasim told CNN. "I have not experienced anythinglike this before in my life, nor has my 60-year-old father.

"The worst of the storm then went back out to sea, but only after wreaking havoc on the tourist hot spot with heavy flooding, rain and damaging winds. It could still end up hitting the South Pacific nation even more over the comingdays.

The Fiji Broadcasting Corp. reported that an elderly man was killed when a roof fell on him.There are no other reports of other fatalities, and the full extent of the damage "is yet to be ascertained," according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA).

The government announced on Twitter that more than 750evacuation centers had been activated.Photos shared on social media with the hashtag#PrayForFiji showed an idyllic paradise beset by flooded streets, roofless houses and downed palm trees."It was an awful night with trees coming down," said resident Alice Clements of Suva, communications specialist for UNICEF in the Pacific.

 "Everywhere I look, it looks like trees are down."Clements said photos showed "Nothing is standing," she said.

"Things have been flattened."Fears of mudslides, coastal inundation Fiji, an archipelago collectively about the size of New Jersey, lies in the South Pacific Ocean some 1,800 miles from Australia's east coast (by comparison, Hawaii is about 2,500 miles from Los Angeles).

 Most of the nation's 900,000 residents live on one of two main islands: Viti Levu or Vanua Levu.Although not hit directly, the capital of Suva endured"damaging gale force winds, heavy rain and power outages.

The Red Cross said it was "fully prepared and on standby.""We are well-organized and prepared," said Eseroma Ledua, operations manager at the Fiji Red Cross.

 "We have prepositioned relief items sufficient for 12,000 people in our headquarters in Suva and have mobilized over 300 staff and volunteers across our 14 branches nationwide.

"Widespread flash flooding and coastal inundation -- flooding in normally dry land -- "is likely as storm surges may push the sea inland several hundred meters," the Red Cross said.Mudslides are a concern.

"This is a mountainous nation, and that means any heavy rainfall will filter down to the lower elevations -- meaning landslides, mudslides.

 The western city of Nadi, on Fiji's main island, suffered minor wind damage but experienced extensive flooding, reported a television team from CNN affiliate TVNZ.  

"You could hear things blowing around outside and even inside air got through the cracks and some things were blowing around my room," reporter Jessica Mutch said.  Many trees were uprooted.  

"You can really see that the infrastructure is not coping with the volume of water and things are getting blocked up," she said.   

A nation wide curfew remained in effect and all flights were canceled.Fiji PM: 'we must stick together' Had it occurred in the Atlantic, Winston would have been a Category 5 hurricane, but because of hemispheric nomenclature, it's dubbed a cyclone. (In the Northwest Pacific, it would be a typhoon; all three are the same weather phenomenon).

No matter what you call it, Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama had his own name for it: an "assault.""As a nation, we are facing an ordeal of the most grievous kind," Bainimarama said.  

 "We must stick together as a people and look after each other.   "Bainimarama, who said that the government is "thoroughly prepared to deal with this crisis," declared a state of emergency that will be in effect for the next 30 days, according to the Fiji TimesAccording to CNN meteorologist Allison Chinchar, while Winston weakened as it moved over land -- as these typesof storms do -- it has since reintensified, and with the El Niño-warmed water serving as fuel, Winston's eye has reformed.

 CNN meteorologist Michael Guy said Winston is expected to "keep strength as it continues on its path in open waters," but said "it will weaken Tuesday or Wednesday once it hits cooler waters and stronger shear."Winston's 184 mph winds smashed the previous record for a Southern Hemisphere cyclone. 

According to Colorado State University hurricane expert Philip Klotzbach, both Cyclone Zoe, which battered the Solomon Islands in 2002, and Cyclone Monica, which walloped Australia in 2006, previously shared the record with their estimated winds of 178 mph. 

 The most powerful such storm on record in any hemisphere was Hurricane Patricia, which was estimated to have hit 200 mph before petering out over southwestern Mexico in October
source of  : CNN
Sunday, 21 February 2016

In Britain, a Green Utility Company Sees Winds of Change

      Electricity pylons lead away from the gas-fired power station at Keadby and a windmill belonging to the adjacent wind farm.

KEADBY, England — A wind farm here, along the River Trent, cranks out enough clean electricity to power as many as 57,000 homes. Monitored remotely, the windmills, 34 turbines each about 400 feet high, require little attention or maintenance and are expected to produce electricity for decades to come.

“They’re very well behaved,” said Sam Cunningham, the wind farm’s manager, as she drove around the almost three-square-mile site.

The owner of the wind farm, the British electricity company SSE, has been betting big on turbines as well as other renewables for years, with multibillion-dollar investments that have made the utility the country’s leading provider of clean power. In theory, last year’s United Nations climate accord in Paris should have been a global validation of the company’s business strategy. 


But instead of doubling down, the utility is rethinking its energy mix, reconsidering plans for large wind farms and even restarting a mothballed power plant that runs on fossil fuel. 

The moves reflect the existential debate faced by many major power companies, as they grapple with real-world energy economics and shifts in government policy. The calculus for fossil fuels can be more favorable at a time when energy prices are low and countries like Britain are rethinking subsidies on renewables to keep electricity prices down.

In this environment, it might be hard for even the most clean-minded power companies to help countries meet the goals set in the landmark Paris climate deal.

“The profitability of renewables is lower than a few years back,” said Deepa Venkateswaran, a utility analyst at Bernstein Research in London. “If power prices fall, their revenues fall.”

Under the deal agreed to in December, 195 countries committed to reducing global greenhouse gas emissions. Utilities will have to play a major role, by shifting from fossil fuels like coal, oil and natural gas to renewable sources of energy.

Even before the deal, SSE was at the forefront of the shift, producing about 43 percent of its power from clean sources. That proportion could grow, as the company plans to shut down almost all of its remaining coal-fired production this year.


But sharp declines in energy prices have forced the utility and others to think twice before beating a hasty retreat from fossil fuels. In SSE’s case, lower natural gas prices have resulted in a 20 percent fall over the last year in the price it charges for one of its main product, wholesale electricity.

“We obviously need to be pragmatic,” said Lee-Ann Fullerton, an SSE spokeswoman. “It’s for government to set the policy and us to get on with delivering.”

Across its portfolio, SSE is making adjustments.


Adjacent to the Keadby wind farm is a 1990s gas-fired power plant that the company closed in 2013 when cheap coal and high natural gas prices made it a money loser. Now gas prices are plummeting and coal is being phased out in Britain under a government mandate.

So the company is bringing the gas plant back into service and is considering doing the same with others. Last summer, it also agreed to spend 915 million pounds, or $1.3 billion, for a 20 percent share of Laggan-Tormore, a giant gas field off the Shetland Islands near Scotland’s north coast. The field is operated by the French energy company Total.

An even bigger factor in SSE’s decision making is the British government’s shifting stance on renewable energy.

For years, London has subsidized various forms of clean power, including onshore wind farms, to wean the country off its heavy dependence on high-pollution coal-fired power plants. In response, SSE invested about £4 billion from 2007 on wind and other low-carbon sources. Partly as a result of those subsidies, about 11 percent of Britain’s power is now generated by wind, compared to 1 percent in 2006, according to Renewable UK, a trade group. Germany, which has made a major commitment to renewables, generated about 13 percent of its energy from wind in 2015, compared with about 5 percent in the United States.

But since winning an outright majority in parliamentary elections last spring, the Conservative government of Prime Minister David Cameron has been shifting focus. It has talked up the benefits of natural gas as a cleaner-burning replacement in power generation for the coal-fired plants it wants to close and backed nuclear power as a long-term source of low-carbon energy.

The government is also trimming subsidies for renewables, and onshore wind farms and other clean sources like solar power are taking a direct hit. Subsidies for new onshore wind projects will be halted this spring, a year earlier than planned, as the Conservatives look to please their rural constituents by honoring election pledges to halt support for land-based windmills.

The government instead wants to focus on offshore wind projects, which are usually less contentious because they are out at sea, and often out of view. Offshore projects also offer enormous scale by deploying bigger turbines in larger numbers than is practical on land. Britain is the world’s largest market for offshore wind, and the government views the industry as a source of jobs, especially along the northern coast, where the oil and gas industry is faltering because of falling prices.

According to Amber Rudd, the minister for energy and climate change, there is already enough onshore wind capacity built or in the pipeline to meet the government’s targets. Wind subsidies also cost £800 million a year.


“We could end up with more onshore wind projects that we can afford,” she said.

SSE is not abandoning wind energy. It is proceeding with three onshore projects under construction, and it is planning a vast offshore wind farm in the Moray Firth, a large bay off northeast Scotland that could have as many as 84 turbines and cost £1.8 billion.

But the economics are rapidly changing.

Even without subsidies, onshore wind is the cheapest of the major renewable technologies to build in Britain, costing around $85 per megawatt-hour for the power generated over the life of a project, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance, a market research firm. By comparison, building a natural gas power plant in Europe costs almost 40 percent more.

Offshore wind is far more expensive to build and operate because of the difficulties of sinking pilings on the sea bottom and keeping equipment functioning in a hostile marine environment. The estimated costs are more than double that of onshore wind.

The subsidies can often make or break a project.

The government has guaranteed a price above the $175 per megawatt-hour offshore costs for a Danish company that is going ahead with a multibillion-pound project off northeast England. The three onshore wind farms that SSE is building in Scotland will also still qualify for subsidies.

Two other large onshore facilities the company is planning — including a giant 67-turbine farm called Stronelairg — probably would not.

So far, having a large renewable portfolio is working in SSE’s favor. For the six months to the end of September, operating profit for the power-generating unit, which includes both renewables and fossil fuel plants, increased to about £142 million from £11.8 million in the comparable period in 2014.

Neil Richardson, a company spokesman, said SSE agreed with the government that “offshore wind and gas have a major role to play” in Britain’s transition to a lower-carbon energy mix, but he said issues including a guaranteed price for power and the future price of carbon were still unsettled. “We want to continue to invest,” he said, “but need certainty.”

Sunday , 21 February 2016

Why Is Mitch McConnell Picking This Fight?

                                            Mitch McConnell, center, in Washington in May

New York - IN early 2009, as Barack Obama was about to take office, Mitch McConnell, the leader of the Republican minority in the Senate, assembled his caucus at a retreat in West Virginia. There, he laid out his strategy for taking on the new president, who was sweeping into office on a tide of popularity, historical resonance and great expectations barely diminished by the economic free fall then underway.

The key, Mr. McConnell told his fellow Republicans, was to stymie and undermine Mr. Obama, but to do so in subtle ways. As one of the senators present, Robert F. Bennett of Utah, later recalled to me: “Mitch said, ‘We have a new president with an approval rating in the 70 percent area. We do not take him on frontally. We find issues where we can win, and we begin to take him down, one issue at a time. We create an inventory of losses, so it’s Obama lost on this, Obama lost on that. And we wait for the time where the image has been damaged to the point where we can take him on.’ ”

Seven years later, with the Republicans now in the Senate majority, the opposition led by Mr. McConnell is as frontal as can be. After word of Justice Antonin Scalia’s death emerged last weekend, it took the majority leader less than an hour to announce that the Senate would not entertain a replacement before November. “This vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president,” he said.

Mr. McConnell’s blunt declaration was taken as the starkest exhibition yet of the obstructionism that has characterized the Kentucky senator’s stance toward President Obama and congressional Democrats. The resistance from Mr. McConnell has had an enormous influence on the shape of Obama’s presidency. It has limited the president’s accomplishments and denied him the mantle of the postpartisan unifier he sought back in 2008. But it has also brought the Senate, the institution to which Mr. McConnell has devoted his life, close to rupture.

His declaration on the Supreme Court also represents a striking shift for the veteran politician. In throwing down the gauntlet so emphatically, and potentially riling up a Democratic electorate, Mr. McConnell was doing something deeply out of character: putting at risk his and his party’s prospects in the coming election.

The best way to understand Addison Mitchell McConnell Jr. has been to recognize that he is not a conservative ideologue, but rather the epitome of the permanent campaign of Washington: What matters most isn’t so much what you do in office, but if you can win again.

As an aspiring young Republican — first, a Senate and Ford administration staff member and then county executive in Louisville — Mr. McConnell leaned to the moderate wing of his party on abortion rights, civil rights and many other issues. It was only when he ran for statewide office, for the Senate in 1984, that he began to really tack right. Mr. McConnell won by a razor-thin margin in a year when Ronald Reagan handily won Kentucky. The lesson was clear: He needed to move closer to Reagan, which he promptly did upon arriving in Washington.

From that point on, the priority was winning every six years and, once he’d made his way up the ranks of leadership, holding a Republican majority. In 1996, that meant voting for a minimum-wage increase to defuse a potential Democratic talking point in his re-election campaign. In 2006, as George W. Bush wrote in his memoir, it meant asking the president if he could start withdrawing troops from Iraq to improve the Republicans’ chance of keeping the Senate that fall, when Mr. McConnell was set to become its leader.

A year later, it meant ducking out of the intense debate on the Senate floor about immigration reform to avoid making himself vulnerable on the issue. It is no accident that the legislative issue Mr. McConnell has become most identified with, weakening campaign finance regulations, is one that pertains directly to elections.


This is also the best way to understand Mr. McConnell’s staunch opposition to the president: It is less about blocking liberal policy goals than about boosting Republican chances. Mr. McConnell intuited, shrewdly, that if he could bottle things up in Washington with the filibuster and other tactics, the blame for the gridlock would fall mostly to the Democrats — the party in the White House. Not to mention that Mr. Obama had campaigned on the promise of transcending Washington’s divides, which made partisan dysfunction look like a personal failure.

There was an obvious cost to this approach. Withholding any support for President Obama’s agenda meant giving up the chance for more policy concessions on big issues like health care and financial reform. But for Mr. McConnell, shaping policy wasn’t the goal. Winning was. When he said, notoriously, just before the 2010 election that “the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president,” it was less an expression of personal animosity than it was a simple reflection of the permanent campaign ethos.

Another cost to this approach became apparent only later. Withholding any votes from Obama’s big proposals meant, by definition, that the Democrats ended up forcing them through on party line votes, which further inflamed the grass-roots conservative backlash to the president. This backlash helped Republicans win in 2010 and 2014, but it also left Mr. McConnell with an empowered right wing, led by the likes of Jim DeMint of South Carolina and Ted Cruz of Texas, that was deeply wary of this onetime moderate with weak ideological moorings. Sometimes, Mr. McConnell could use this right wing to his benefit — warning the White House, for instance, that it had better accede to Republican demands on the debt ceiling in 2011 lest the renegades take the country to default.

More often, though, these self-described revolutionaries confounded him, which led to explosions of frustration like the one that a longtime associate witnessed in 2011: “He said, ‘Those idiots, those people come up here and have never been in office and know nothing about being in office.’ ”

Such outbursts were kept under wraps, of course. Mr. McConnell needed to appease enough of the chaos makers in order to stay atop the Republican caucus, and to overcome a Tea Party Republican challenger leading up to his 2014 re-election.

He managed to do so, and finally attained his goal of becoming majority leader. He made initial overtures to Mr. Obama about finding common ground in areas like trade policy. But soon enough, the focus turned back toward the next election, 2016. Republicans now have seven Senate seats to defend in states that the president carried in 2012.

Justice Scalia’s death has greatly complicated Mr. McConnell’s election-year plans. Remarkably, he has, for once, chosen a path that would seem to reduce his party’s odds in November.

Unlike 2009 and 2010, when his opposition took the form of procedural delays, Mr. McConnell is taking a high-profile stand. Had he instead allowed the nomination process to proceed and bog down in more gridlock, the outrage quotient among Democrats would have remained lower and his prospects for retaining the majority higher.

The likeliest explanation is that the insurgency that Mr. McConnell helped engender has gotten so strong, embodied in the rise of Donald J. Trump and Ted Cruz, that it has caused him to lose his bearings. He felt compelled to get out in front of the base’s ire over the Scalia replacement to avoid a later challenge to his leadership perch.

It is also possible, though, that in the Supreme Court’s balance, in particular in relation to campaign finance law, Mr. McConnell has at long last discovered one matter that is so consequential that it is worth risking an election over.
Sunday, 21 February 2016

E.U. Deal Clears Path for British Referendum on Membership


      Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain arriving Friday for the second day of a European Union summit meeting in Brussels.

BRUSSELS - European Union leaders agreed on Friday to a deal to overhaul their ties with Britain, opening the way for a high-stakes referendum on whether the bloc’s most ambivalent member country will stay within the union or quit.

After hours of tense talks, all 28 European Union leaders signed off on an agreement covering a variety of issues related to sovereignty, economics and migration, and intended to help keep skeptical Britons within the European Union when they vote on the matter, almost certainly in June.

“I believe this is enough for me to recommend that the United Kingdom remain in the European Union,” said Prime Minister David Cameron of Britain after reaching the agreement at a summit meeting in Brussels, adding that the deal ensured both “special status” for his country and that “Britain will never be part of a European superstate.”

    The referendum would be a “once-in-a-generation moment to shape the destiny of our country,” Mr. Cameron added.

Other leaders welcomed the agreement, including Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who said the union had given a package to Mr. Cameron “that will enable him to elicit support in Britain for Britain remaining a member of the European Union.

Mr. Cameron plans to hold a cabinet meeting on Saturday morning and is expected to hold the referendum on June 23. But the divisions within his Conservative Party were underlined by reports that a friend and cabinet colleague, Michael Gove, will campaign to leave the union, a decision that Mr. Cameron said left him “disappointed but not surprised.”

And even after the agreement, the referendum represents a huge gamble because a no vote would have huge ramifications for Europe, as well as for Britain.

Already contending with a record influx of migrants and a weak economic outlook, European leaders are desperate to avoid a British exit, or “Brexit,” which would plunge the bloc into a new crisis, adding to uncertainty about its future.

Nevertheless, the wrangling went on for about 30 hours because some of Mr. Cameron’s requests called into question fundamental principles that have evolved over years of integration in the European Union, such as the members’ commitment to a closer union, the freedom of its citizens to work and live throughout the bloc and their right to equal treatment.

The referendum has been billed by Mr. Cameron as the moment to settle whether Britain should remain a member of the club it joined more than four decades ago. That relationship has become increasingly neuralgic amid concerns about bureaucratic meddling by European policy makers.

In 2013, under pressure from right-wing euroskeptics in his own party, Mr. Cameron promised to call a referendum by the end of 2017, but said he first wanted to renegotiate British ties so he could recommend a vote to stay.

His demands tested the good will of other European partners in the negotiations, which started Thursday and stretched late into Friday night.

Ultimately, he appeared to win most of the battles he had fought over a draft agreement, though this is unlikely to impress euroskeptics.

Among the most delicate concessions Mr. Cameron secured was a mechanism to restrict the welfare supplements for citizens from other European Union countries who arrive in Britain, a benefit that is ordinarily available to people in low-paid jobs. There will also be changes to reduce the child benefit payments to non-British workers who come to Britain.

Mr. Cameron also secured guarantees that Britain’s financial sector will not face discrimination because the British have kept the pound and have no intention of adopting the single European currency, the euro.

He also achieved his demand to exempt Britain from the largely symbolic pledge to pursue “ever closer union,” which for some euroskeptics encapsulates the pursuit of a federal Europe that would supersede the nation-state. When the bloc’s treaty is next revised, it will be made clear that Britain is no longer bound by this obligation.

Ms. Merkel described this as “an emotional issue,” adding that she had agreed to the concession “in the spirit of compromise.”

As if those issues were not complicated enough, talks proved more difficult than expected, partly because efforts to negotiate a compromise were delayed as European leaders took time to debate migration, their other pressing concern.

The overlapping threats facing the bloc were underlined on Friday by suggestions that the Greeks might block the meeting’s concluding document if they did not receive reassurances that European states would not shut borders to stop migrants from moving northward.

Mr. Cameron’s deal initially was to be approved at an “English breakfast,” but it was delayed first to brunch, then to the afternoon and then to an “English dinner.” By early Saturday, the remaining differences were hammered out.

Always an awkward European partner, Britain joined the forerunner of the European Union in 1973 after more than a decade of trying. Even then membership was controversial, and after he came to power in 1974, the Labour prime minister, Harold Wilson, held a referendum in 1975 on whether Britain should stay in what was then called the European Economic Community.

Had Britain voted to leave at that point, its departure would have had relatively few implications because its membership was so new. But now, Britain is much more deeply integrated into myriad Europewide agreements in areas like international trade, climate protection and subsidies for farmers hashed out in Brussels, not London.

Among Europeans, Britons are among the least enthusiastic about membership of the bloc, according to opinion surveys. Britain is a net contributor to the European Union’s budget. In the 1970s, the British economy was stagnant, while continental Europe made gains, but that situation is now reversed.

The bloc’s long battle to save the eurozone from imploding in recent years, and its failure to craft a unified response to the migration crisis, has made the European Union look even less attractive to many Britons.

Although few of the migrants arriving in Europe during the past year have made their way to Britain, immigration still is a contentious issue because Britain saw a large influx of workers from Central and Eastern Europe after countries like Poland joined the bloc in 2004.

At the time, the government could have kept its labor market closed for several years — as countries such as France and Germany did — but elected not to.
 Sunday, 21 February 2016


Francis and Trump: Populist Leaders Preaching Divergent Messages

                          Francis and Trump: Populist Leaders Preaching Divergent Messages

ROME — In the cage fight of American presidential politics, the matchup is irresistible: Pope Francis, leader of the world’s 1.2 billion Roman Catholics, the pope of the poor who has knelt to wash the feet of prisoners and Muslims, versus Donald J. Trump, billionaire Republican who disparages Muslims and kneels to no one.

When Francis suggested that Mr. Trump “is not Christian” in answering a reporter’s question during his return flight from Mexico, the Latin American pope not only served up red meat for global headline writers (“Francis Excommunicates Trump,” declared La Stampa in Italy), but again demonstrated his knack for sticking his nose into putatively secular affairs. His flap with Mr. Trump is about immigration, and to Francis the issue transcends any campaign cycle.

From the first days of his papacy, when he insisted on paying his hotel bill himself, Francis has understood the power of a gesture, and of a global spotlight available to any pope capable of using it. The pontiff who made a politically charged visit to the United States-Mexico border on Wednesday is the same one who in 2014 stopped in Bethlehem to pray at the graffiti-covered wall dividing the Palestinian city from Israeli-controlled Jerusalem.

His critics in the United States, many of them conservative Catholics, argue that Francis is a “political pope” pursuing a leftist agenda that castigates capitalism and environmental degradation. Even before Francis’s remarks about him, Mr. Trump had criticized the pope as “a political person” and accused him of visiting the border as a favor to the Mexican government.

That would probably be a surprise to the Mexican government, judging from Francis’s six-day swing through the country. Every day, Francis spoke of the malaise in Mexican society, the lack of jobs and education for the young, the horrific violence of the drug cartels. His itinerary was a tour of political failure and social injustice: slums, the heartland of exploited indigenous communities and a divided border

The Francis-versus-Trump dynamic is undeniably a made-for-media clash. But overlooked in that frame is that each man has diagnosed the same currents in society, fishing for followers in seas churning with anger, dislocation, spiritual alienation and economic inequality. Seen from Europe, Mr. Trump is an amplified version of angry populists like Marine Le Pen, the far-right leader in France, playing to fears about migrants, Islam and economic stagnation.

“Trump is the leader of a populism that’s growing: a cultural industry that has imitators in many countries in Eastern Europe, above all, but also in France, Italy, Denmark, Scandinavia,” Massimo Franco, a columnist for the Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera, wrote on Friday.

“It expresses a resentment and hatred towards the ‘foreigner’ born of fear and economic insecurity,” Mr. Franco added. “Trump becomes the metaphor of an egotistical and racist Christianity, which for the pope represents an unacceptable oxymoron.”

Giovanni Maria Vian, the editor in chief of the Vatican’s official newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano, said every pope was “both religious and political.” Pope John Paul II was a famously political pope for his role during the Cold War in bringing down the Iron Curtain that divided East from West. Francis, born in Argentina, has a different focus.

“Francis’s walls are between the north and south of the world, and that’s why they bother him,” Mr. Vian said in a telephone interview. “His reactions are moral, not political.”

Yet he has inevitably strayed into the political realm, as he critiques society, and no doubt deliberately. While populists like Mr. Trump and Ms. Le Pen partly blame foreigners for inequities, Francis points to structural inequities deriving from the global capitalist order. His speeches about the excesses of capitalism, often sprinkled with Old Testament fury, divide the world between exploiters and the exploited.

“God will hold the slave drivers of our day accountable,” Francis said in a speech to workers and business owners in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico, as he called for greater Christian ethics in business. “The flow of capital cannot decide the flow and life of people.”

More than anyone, Mr. Trump symbolizes the excesses of capitalism, yet Vatican officials on Friday emphasized that the pope was not personally attacking Mr. Trump, nor trying to influence American voters.

“The pope said what we all know, when we follow his teaching and his views: that we should not build walls but bridges,” a Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, told Vatican Radio. “It’s his general position, and it is coherent with what it means to courageously follow the indications of the Gospel, of acceptance and solidarity.”

Indeed, the pope’s overarching message is to call on all Christians to be more Christian, including those high up in the hierarchy of the Roman Catholic Church. He has repeatedly challenged his own bishops to be humbler, to get out onto the streets and to be more compassionate. His economic critique is also a moral one, as he laments a “throwaway culture” in which poor people and migrants are collateral damage. By contrast, Mr. Trump likes to divvy people up as winners and losers.

In his final Mass celebrated along the Mexican border, Francis told the biblical story of the city of Nineveh, which was “self-destructing as a result of oppression and dishonor, violence and injustice.” God sent a messenger, Jonah, to warn people and the local king that they must change how they treat one another or the city would be destroyed. The king listened, and Ninevah was saved.
“He sent him to wake up a people intoxicated with themselves,” Francis said.
It is hard not think that Francis sees his job as exactly the same.
Sunday, 21 February 2016

Donald Trump in Triage Mode After Shocking Conservatives With Health Care Comments

        Donald Trump addressing a rally on Friday at the Pawleys Plantation Golf and Country Club in Pawleys Island, S.C. In comments televised on Thursday, Mr. Trump expressed support for the main tenet of the Affordable Care Act. Less than 24 hours later, he distanced himself from the remark .

He has broken with many Republicans on taxing the rich, threatening trade wars and keeping Planned Parenthood alive. On Friday, Donald J. Trump faced criticism for an even bolder act of conservative heresy: embracing the core tenet of the Affordable Care Act.

      Mr. Trump has to date offered only bits and pieces of his health agenda, generally presenting a vow to repeal “Obamacare” and replace it with “something great.”

In a town-hall meeting hosted by CNN on Thursday night, he shared some more expansive views on the subject, and unlike most Republicans he did not call for removing the individual mandate that requires Americans to have health insurance.

Asked how people with pre-existing medical conditions would purchase insurance if the health law and the mandate were eliminated, Mr. Trump said, “I like the mandate.”

“So here’s where I’m a little bit different,” he continued. “I don’t want people dying on the streets.”

Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Trump backed away from his remarks, proclaiming himself to be the fiercest opponent of the health law. It was the latest example of a candidate who has been impervious to inconsistencies again emerging unscathed from a misstep that would probably be damaging to anyone else.


The Affordable Care Act has sometimes put Republicans in an awkward position on the campaign trail. While the popularity of the law remains mixed nationally, many Americans have benefited from the aspects of the legislation that would be lost if it is repealed.

     Senator Ted Cruz of Texas faced an uncomfortable silence in Iowa last month when a supporter of Hillary Clinton explained to him how a relative who was riddled with tumors had not had insurance before the law. While Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, like his Republican opponents, wants to repeal the law, he has also been criticized by conservatives for using it to expand Medicaid in his state.


For years, President Obama’s health care overhaul, and the individual mandate specifically, have been anathema to Republicans who cite it as a vivid example of government overreach.

Without providing many details, Mr. Trump said this week that he would promote health savings accounts and spur interstate competition among insurance companies to reduce prices. As for patients who could still not afford insurance, Mr. Trump said, “We’re going to take care of them through maybe concepts of Medicare,” suggesting an expansion of that government program.

Conservatives were taken aback. Senator Ben Sasse, a Republican from Nebraska who opposes Mr. Trump, said in a series of posts on Twitter that the billionaire businessman appeared to embrace most of the health law and wondered what kind of Supreme Court justices he would appoint if elected. The legality of the mandate, and the government’s power to impose fines on people who ignore it, was central to the Supreme Court decision that upheld the law in 2012.


Many Republicans have called Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., a George W. Bush appointee, a turncoat for having written that decision. Mr. Trump has been one of the loudest.

    “Would you nominate a Supreme Court justice who agrees with you that federal government can mandate purchasing specific products?” Mr. Sasse asked Mr. Trump on Twitter.

Rush Limbaugh, the conservative radio host who has been a defender of Mr. Trump in many instances, was also incensed. And he took issue with Mr. Trump’s suggestion that other Republicans are not disturbed by the idea of people dying in the street.


“You can’t talk about repealing Obamacare and like the mandate,” Mr. Limbaugh said during his show on Friday.

In the face of that backlash, Mr. Trump fired back on Twitter that he had been misunderstood. He said he only liked the provision in the law that requires insurers to provide coverage for people who are already ill. He then promised that he intended to repeal the entire piece of legislation, including the mandate.

The mandate underpins the law by spreading insurers’ risk between the young and healthy and the older part of the population that needs costlier medical care. Without that requirement, insurers have said, the market could collapse.

    Mr. Trump’s expression of support for the mandate was not the first time that he has struck a left-leaning tone on health care. In an interview with CBS last year he said, “Everybody’s got to be covered” and said he would cut deals with hospitals to care for people who could not afford treatment. Asked how it would be paid for, Mr. Trump responded, “The government’s going to pay for it.”

He also recently began talking about allowing the government to negotiate with drug companies to cut prices.

“If we negotiated the price of drugs,” he said in a town hall-style debate on MSNBC this week, “we’d save $300 billion a year.”

Both Mrs. Clinton and Senator Bernie Sanders have called for allowing Medicare to negotiate the cost of medicines with drug companies. President Obama has also sought the authority to negotiate prices for some expensive drugs through the Medicare Part D program. But he has faced fierce opposition from Republicans in Congress and pharmaceutical lobbying groups.

     Health care analysts have said that allowing the government to have more influence in the market this way could have unintended consequences, like suppressing drug company revenues so much that they would cut back on research. In any event, hearing the idea come from a Republican raised eyebrows.

“It’s a proposal that’s normally associated with Democrats, so for a Republican, in fact the leading Republican candidate, to say that was a surprise,” said John Rother, executive director of the Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, an advocacy group working to cut drug prices.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said that his independence on the issue was more evidence that he was not beholden to “special interests” and lobbyists

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Xiao Gang, China’s Top Securities Regulator, Ousted Over Market Tumult

      Xiao Gang, who was replaced as chairman of the China Securities Regulatory Commission, had been criticized for allowing a speculative bubble to form in the country’s stock market

HONG KONG — China’s top securities regulator, Xiao Gang, has been forced out, the official Xinhua News Agency announced on Saturday, after facing stinging criticism for amplifying the country’s stock market turbulence.

The move reflects the increasing pressure on the Chinese leadership to bolster confidence at home, as questions mount about Beijing’s ability to manage the economy, the currency and the markets.

Just days ago, Prime Minister Li Keqiang castigated the country’s financial regulators for their handling of a steep plunge in stocks since last June and an erosion in the value of China’s currency.

The China Securities Regulatory Commission, led by Mr. Xiao, 57, has taken a big dose of blame for the problems.

He attracted significant criticism for allowing a speculative bubble to form, in which share prices more than doubled in a year. When it burst last summer, those shares gave up all of their gains, hurting millions of families who had borrowed heavily to buy stocks.

As stocks sank, the regulator also intensified the market mayhem. Two measures, intended to stabilize stocks, have been widely blamed for producing a weeklong rout in China’s stock markets during the first week of January that unsettled investors around the world.


Mr. Xiao defended himself in a long statement on his agency’s website in mid-January, analyzing the causes of his country’s recent financial sector difficulties. He said the turbulence in China’s markets, including another nose dive in share prices last summer, was partly caused by the inexperience of investors and the immaturity of the local market.

But he also conceded that recent troubles reflected an “imperfect trading system, flawed market mechanisms and inappropriate supervision systems,” together with an exodus of seasoned personnel from his agency.

Mr. Xiao, who also lost his post as the regulator’s Communist Party leader, will be succeeded as chairman and party leader by Liu Shiyu, 54, chairman of the Agricultural Bank of China and a former deputy governor of the People’s Bank of China, according to the news agency.

Mr. Liu was trained in engineering at Tsinghua University, but started a career in the state banking sector in the 1980s, according to the news agency.

His task will not be an easy one.

     Anticorruption investigators have been scrutinizing the agency, trying to ascertain whether staff members tipped off friends about their decisions, particularly during the market’s fall last summer. New rules also make it hard for the spouses and children of regulators to live overseas, even though the regulatory agency has also been widely accused of lacking workers with international experience and connections.

But the biggest challenge for Mr. Xiao’s successor may be a lack of autonomy. The senior leadership in Beijing gave little latitude to Mr. Xiao, and it is likely to vet and second-guess his successor as well.

“Even changing him is not going to change the system,” said Hao Hong, the chief strategist at the Bank of Communications International, the overseas arm of one of China’s largest banks. “I don’t see how someone else will want to take his job; he has a very unenviable position.”

Mr. Xiao, who earned an undergraduate degree from Hunan University and a master’s degree in law from Renmin University, spent much of his career in finance.

     He started at the People’s Bank of China in 1981. At the central bank, he held several posts, including director general of the fund planning department and the monetary policy department, working his way up to deputy governor.

In 2003, he moved to the state-owned Bank of China, where he served as chairman of the board and secretary of the party committee. While he was at the Bank of China, he described the rapid growth of country’s shadow-banking sector as “fundamentally a Ponzi scheme.”

      Mr. Xiao took over at the securities regulator in March 2013, putting him at the helm during the rise and the fall of the Chinese stock markets.

When the markets started tumbling, Mr. Xiao’s agency rolled out a raft of measures to help stabilize the situation. He halted initial public offerings of stock and banned share sales by large stakeholders.

The regulator’s efforts worked for a while, but they started to backfire in January.

    Mr. Xiao’s agency introduced so-called circuit breakers for its stock market on the first trading day of this year. The circuit breakers mandated that markets would close for 15 minutes if share prices fell 5 percent and would close for the day if they fell 7 percent.

It was intended to provide a cooling-off period. But in practice, it added to the anxiety in the markets.

As markets began sustained slides, investors rushed to sell as many shares as possible before the circuit breakers could shut down trading. The thresholds were hit in quick succession, twice during the first week of trading in January.

Further policy measures only added to investors’ confusion. The ban of share sales was supposed to expire, and the country’s central bank was pushing down the value of the currency.

As China’s stock markets and the value of the renminbi tumbled faster, the country’s leaders ended up scrapping all three policies in less than 24 hours. The circuit breakers were repealed, the ban on sales of shares by large stakeholders was extended, and the central bank intervened decisively in currency markets to halt any further drop in the renminbi.

“It was a correct strategy to take market-stabilizing measures against unusual movements in stocks and the currency last year,” Prime Minister Li said last Monday of the State Council, China’s cabinet, according to the government-controlled Beijing News. “Looking back, the major responsible departments took inadequate actions and had internal management issues.”

Sunday, 21 February 2016

After Paris Terror Attacks, France Struggles With Faith on the Job

                 Bachir B. was a passenger screener at Orly airport, south of Paris, until he was fired. He had been cited for failing to adequately trim the thick beard that he wears in keeping with his Muslim beliefs.


A week after the terrorist attacks in France last November, Bachir B., a passenger screener at Orly airport south of Paris, was called into his manager’s office. Bachir, a devout Muslim who wears a thick beard in keeping with his faith, was ordered to trim his facial hair. His boss even offered to buy him a beard clipper as a birthday gift.

While supervisors had sometimes reminded him of a company dress code requiring whiskers to be kept “tidy” and “short,” Bachir said that the rule had been enforced only sporadically over his six years working for Securitas, a private security company. This time, the manager made clear that the new crackdown was “because of what was happening in the news,” said Bachir, who asked that his last name not be used to protect his family’s privacy.

Bachir trimmed his beard that weekend. But he said his boss sent him home about 10 days later, again citing his failure to comply with the dress code. Soon after, Bachir received a registered letter from Securitas, saying that he was fired.


Reconciling the religious precepts of observant Muslims with the secular norms in the European workplace has long been a sensitive subject. France’s strict legal separation of religious and civic life — a legacy of the French Revolution known as laïcité — formally discourages, and in some situations expressly bans, public religious expression. It is a brand of secularism that coexists uneasily with Islamic traditions, making workplace negotiations about religious practice particularly difficult and prone to misunderstandings.

The issues have become thornier after the latest wave of terrorist activity, including the November attacks in Paris that left 130 dead. With much of the region on edge, the French government has set a forceful tone, granting sweeping emergency powers to the police and stepping up the scrutiny of mosques, Islamic associations and individuals. The sense of unease is particularly palpable for companies operating in sensitive areas like transportation, security and infrastructure.

Adding to workplace conflicts like the one at Securitas, as well as reports of tensions at other large employers, is that many Muslims have become more assertive in fighting stigmatization on the job. But many managers and union leaders in France report feeling ill equipped to respond to employee demands for things like dedicated prayer rooms or pork-free canteens — let alone to detect and combat genuine radicalization at work.

“Today, we are in a very complicated situation,” said Philippe Humeau, a researcher at InAgora, a consultancy that specializes in religion and the workplace.

While France’s workplace rules around religion are relatively distinct, the broad concerns are playing out globally, as countries confront the rise in terrorist activities. In the United States, questions of workplace safety arose after a radicalized California health department employee killed 14 colleagues in an attack on an office party in San Bernardino, Calif., in December.


“Most companies don’t know much about Islam,” he said. And in the current climate, “we are seeing companies confuse strict religious practice, which is already difficult to accept in France, with radicalization.”

The risk is that companies, in a quest to protect their staff and their clients, unfairly profile certain employees.

Bachir is convinced that he was fired over fears that his religious expression made him a possible security threat. He filed a discrimination complaint against Securitas with French prosecutors, who are reviewing it.

He is one of at least a half-dozen security guards — all bearded Muslim men — who have been let go by Securitas since the November attacks. They are all challenging their dismissals in a French labor court.

Their dismissals followed a similar pattern. In late November, they received the same written warning, copies of which were reviewed by The New York Times. “The face must be close-shaven, goatees, mustaches and beards kept short, trimmed, tidy and maintained,” the warnings stated. Weeks later, they were sent dismissal letters. The letters refer to repeated violations of the dress code, while a few, including Bachir’s letter, also list additional infractions such as unexcused absences and tardiness.

“That beard did not just grow from one day to the next,” said Eric Moutet, a lawyer representing the men. “But suddenly now it’s a problem? Clearly it’s not something about his behavior that has changed but rather it is the way that person is now being viewed.”

Securitas, which provides about 400 security agents to Orly airport under a multiyear contract and an additional 1,000 at Charles de Gaulle airport in Paris, declined to discuss the specific dismissals, citing the pending litigation. The security company said the beard rules, and the subsequent firings, adhered to the law. As a private company working on behalf of public sector clients like the airport, Securitas said it must conform to France’s strict secularism laws.

“We are confident,” Michel Mathieu, the head of Securitas’s French operations, said, in reference to the decision to fire the Orly guards. The company has not accused the guards of any illegal activities, nor has it presented any evidence that they engaged in radical behavior on the job. But he said that recent events had led Securitas to revisit its approach to all forms of religious practice in the workplace.

What some might view as overt religious profiling, Mr. Mathieu insisted had become a necessity for a company like Securitas, whose mission is to protect against potential dangers that now include Islamic terrorism. The risks, he added, were no longer abstract. Last year, Securitas alerted the French authorities to four security agents who, despite a rigorous vetting process that includes multiple background checks, were found in possession of jihadist propaganda on the job.

“French companies have been touched by the phenomenon of radicalization,” Mr. Mathieu said. “We have to be able to speak about these things.”


In the days after the deadly November attacks, it emerged that one of the gunmen identified in the attack at the Bataclan concert hall had once worked as a bus driver for RATP, the Paris transportation authority. Almost immediately, the French media questioned whether more radical Islamists might be lurking among the RATP’s staff. Some labor union leaders complained that managers, fearful of complaints from Muslim employees, had long tolerated religious behavior on the job that was explicitly prohibited by the company’s own policies.

The RATP chief executive, Elisabeth Borne, swiftly dismissed the speculation as overblown and warned against “conflating” religious practice with extremism. But the company also quietly acknowledged that workplace conflicts linked to religious behavior, albeit still “very marginal” in number, had become a concern in recent years.

“The RATP cannot escape the difficulties confronted by French society,” the company said in a statement.


“We don’t fire them, because that could be a powerful incitement to radicalization,” Mr. Pepy said.

Analysts said most companies were able to deal with more common employee requests — including the ability to wear head scarves or arrange schedules and break times to allow for prayers and other observances — and that those actions could be easily distinguished from proselytizing or abrupt changes in behavior that could be a sign of radicalization.

But those lines aren’t always discernible and some people, like the job coach Mr. Trolliet, worry that the current environment of fear could quickly erode employers’ openness to religious accommodation in general.

“As always,” he said, “there are groups that have a hidden agenda, who will use the leverage of well-meaning people.”
Refusing to Shake Hands

Because they work for a public entity, employees of the RATP, the Paris transport authority, are expressly prohibited from “any behavior or wearing of conspicuous signs that could reveal an affiliation with any religion or philosophy whatsoever.” Violations of this rule are meant to be subject to disciplinary action, including potential termination.

So when Christophe Salmon, a delegate for CFDT, a leading French labor union, started receiving complaints about a group of male bus drivers who were refusing to address female colleagues or shake their hands, he raised the alarm. At certain bus depots, he said, some male employees wouldn’t take the wheel of a vehicle that had been previously driven by a woman.

Rather than report the behavior to the authority’s human resource managers, Mr. Salmon said that supervisors simply adjusted the drivers’ schedules and routes to avoid handoffs between women and men. In one case, Mr. Salmon said, a woman who lived within walking distance of her depot asked to be transferred to a job across town rather than stay and continue to endure the harassment.

Some of the drivers were ultimately reprimanded, but none were fired, an outcome that Mr. Salmon said amounted to “a kind of trivialization” of such behavior. The authority responded by distributing a 34-page handbook in 2013 that defines the principles of religious neutrality and diversity to managers and describes a number of common workplace situations. However, Mr. Salmon said, few supervisors received formal practical guidance on how to address conflicts when they arose.

“These guys have been very well trained to drive buses and trains, but they know nothing about laïcité,” Mr. Salmon said, referring to the supervisors. “All they have is a bunch of guidelines on paper.”

In an emailed statement, the Paris transport authority said it took questions of religious conflict “seriously,” although it declined to discuss specific cases. The company recently announced the creation of a new working group, reporting to the chief executive, that was intended to provide “concrete support to front-line managers” on questions of religious behavior. In addition, plans are in the works to develop a dedicated peer-support network, giving staff members a resource for informal advice when issues arise.

Uncertain about the true security threats to their operations and staff, many employers are now struggling to strike an appropriate balance between vigilance and protection of the rights of their employees.

“That is the real trap for employers,” said Lionel Honoré, director of the Observatory of Workplace Religious Practice.

Paradoxically, he said, it is often the employees most open to dialogue who are the first to be pressed to adapt their religious practices, while more troubling behavior is sometimes allowed to continue unchallenged for fear of escalating the problem.

“Radical people make some managers nervous, and so they leave them alone,” Mr. Honoré said.

At Securitas, Mr. Mathieu conceded that the company’s crackdown on beards and other forms of religious expression had raised concerns among staff members, and not only among Muslims. He said that the company was sensitive to the risk of making “errors of good faith” about religious behavior on the job.

“People can confuse these things, either voluntarily or involuntarily,” Mr. Mathieu said. “I always want to make things as transparent as possible.”

Mr. Moutet, the lawyer for the Securitas guards, said that the number of dismissed Muslim workers who had contacted him to bring religious discrimination suits had been rising over the last year. That increase, he feared, was in parallel with the tougher line against terrorism being taken by the French authorities.

“It seems that there are some companies that are taking advantage of the mood of panic to try to clean house and sweep out certain people that they simply don’t like,” Mr. Moutet said.

Bachir, the former Orly guard whose beard cost him his job, worries that cases like his will become more common. He still maintains a valid security guard’s license, which is granted only after an extensive police background check. But Bachir, who is married and is a father, said he was considering a new line of work or even going into business for himself.

“Today in France, laïcité only has one meaning, and it is anti-Islam,” he said. “It has become so widespread. And now, yes, it has infected the workplace.”

Sunday, 21 February 2016

Justice Antonin Scalia’s Funeral Lets Washington Pause in Praise

               The Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception in Washington, where the funeral Mass for Justice Antonin Scalia will be said on Saturday.

 WASHINGTON — Justice Antonin Scalia used to say he was better at responding to criticism than to praise. But praise will be the order of the day at a funeral Mass for him here on Saturday as the nation’s capital pauses to mourn the passing of a jurist who left an indelible mark on the laws of his country.

Justices, judges, congressional leaders, cabinet secretaries, the vice president and at least one presidential candidate planned to gather at the nation’s largest Roman Catholic church to pay tribute to Justice Scalia. The longest-serving member of the current Supreme Court, he died at age 79 last weekend at a Texas ranch after nearly 30 years on the highest bench in the land.
Continue reading the main story
Related Coverage

    Justice Antonin Scalia Honored at Supreme Court FEB. 19, 2016
    video
    Antonin Scalia's Casket Arrives at CourtFEB. 19, 2016
    Supreme Court Appointment Could Reshape American LifeFEB. 18, 2016

The funeral is expected to be one of those ritual Washington moments when the perpetual struggle at the intersection of law and politics is briefly suspended to honor one of the capital’s most celebrated and cheerfully controversial gladiators. Justice Scalia, who relished a vigorous debate, would hardly be surprised by the fierce battle that has erupted over his now-vacant seat, but his admirers hoped to focus for a few hours at least on the powerful legacy he left.


The funeral will be the first for a sitting member of the court since Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist died in 2005 and only the second since Justice Robert H. Jackson died in 1954. Justice Scalia’s body lay in repose on Friday in the Great Hall of the Supreme Court, where President Obama and the eight other justices paid their respects along with the justice’s widow, Maureen, and their nine children.

Mr. Obama will not attend the funeral on Saturday, leaving it to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. to represent the administration. The decision generated sharp criticism from some, including former Obama advisers, who called it a missed opportunity for the president to rise above the partisan fray that has erupted after Justice Scalia’s death. But others close to Justice Scalia and his family said it was more appropriate for the president to pay respects at the Supreme Court as he did on Friday.

The White House said the president and Michelle Obama had met privately with some members of Justice Scalia’s family while at the court. “The president and Mrs. Obama extended their personal condolences on behalf of the nation and expressed gratitude for Justice Scalia’s decades of public service,” Josh Earnest, the White House press secretary, said in a statement.


The monumental struggle set off by Justice Scalia’s death will be reflected at the service. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, a Republican presidential candidate who has vowed to make the election a referendum on the court and block any Obama nominee, rearranged his schedule to attend Saturday’s funeral even as voting opens in South Carolina’s crucial Republican primary. Mr. Biden, who as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee voted in favor of Justice Scalia’s confirmation in 1986, has publicly argued for Mr. Obama’s prerogative to nominate a replacement.

The Mass will include a homily from one of the justice’s sons, the Rev. Paul D. Scalia, the episcopal vicar for clergy in the Diocese of Arlington, Va. Four other sons will serve as pallbearers. Leaders of the Catholic Church will be on hand, including Cardinal Donald Wuerl, the archbishop of Washington, who will offer opening remarks, and Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò, the papal nuncio to the United States. Justice Clarence Thomas, who was Justice Scalia’s closest ally on the court for years, will read Romans 5:5-11.

The burial will follow the Mass and will be private. But the family announced that a memorial program for Justice Scalia will be held at 11 a.m. on March 1 at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington.

The son of an Italian immigrant father, Justice Scalia was born in Trenton, spent part of his childhood in New York City, finished first in his class at Georgetown University and graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. After a stint in private practice, he went on to teach at the University of Virginia, served in the Nixon and Ford administrations and returned to academia at the University of Chicago.


President Ronald Reagan named him to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1982 and four years later made him the first Italian-American to serve on the Supreme Court. Once a lonely exponent of originalism, the notion that the Constitution should be interpreted based on the original intent of its authors, Justice Scalia through sheer force of will helped push the philosophy into the mainstream legal debate.

He was often in dissent, resisting in typically scathing terms what he considered the judicial activism of rulings like last year’s decision legalizing same-sex marriage. “The wins,” he once told his biographer, Joan Biskupic. “The wins. Damn few.”

But his wins came more readily in recent years with the addition of fellow conservatives, particularly in decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller, which he wrote for the court, recognizing for the first time a Second Amendment right for individuals to own guns.

Justice Scalia will be remembered for more than his legal philosophy, though. An enthusiastic fan of opera, hunting and the New York Yankees, he lived large in a judicial monastery where his colleagues sometimes seemed bland by comparison. He did not mind mixing it up with his fellow justices at oral arguments or in their briefs, even as he maintained a close friendship across ideological lines with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

A deeply religious Catholic, Justice Scalia was married for more than 55 years and became the father of nine children and the grandfather of 36, a family life that will be on display at Saturday’s funeral at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception.

Sunday, 21 February 2016