Alex Regula, a prospect that was in the Chicago Blackhawks organization two seasons ago, was placed on waivers by the Boston Bruins and picked up by the Edmonton Oilers. Chicago traded Regula to the Bruins as part of the deal to acquire Taylor Hall in the 2023 off-season. The Bruins signed Regula for a second time this past off-season to a one-year, $775,000 deal (league minimum). He was injured prior to the season starting and has been on the injured reserve this entire season. Upon getting healthy, he was placed on waivers for the second consecutive season. The Bruins also cut him from their roster in 2023 in training camp. Edmonton claims Alec Regula on waivers — Elliotte Friedman (@FriedgeHNIC) Regula played all 22 of his career games in the NHL in Chicago and didn't play any last season for Boston. He spent the entirety of the 2023-24 season playing in the AHL where the defenseman put up four goals and 26 points in 55 games. He produced five goals and 21 points in 51 games in 2022-23 for the Rockford IceHogs. The former Blackhawks' prospect has one career goal that came in the 2021-22 season. Regula's time in Chicago was clearly at an end since there was just no room for growth for him in the organization with who was on the way. The Blackhawks arguably have the best and/or most young defensemen/defensive prospects in the league right now. Regula isn't a bad defenseman and he could prove some people wrong at the NHL level. There is some upside there that was reached in Junior. He is a solid depth piece that has a little NHL experience at least, and that's what it seems like the Oilers are hoping for with his pickup. He could very well end back up in Boston very shortly, but won't be making his way back to the Blackhawks. Visit team site to stay updated on the , coverage, , and more. Recent Blackhawks NewsNone
NoneAn online spat between factions of Donald Trump 's supporters over immigration and the tech industry has thrown internal divisions in his political movement into public display, previewing the fissures and contradictory views his coalition could bring to the White House. The rift laid bare the tensions between the newest flank of Trump's movement — wealthy members of the tech world including billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and their call for more highly skilled workers in their industry — and people in Trump's Make America Great Again base who championed his hardline immigration policies. The debate touched off this week when Laura Loomer , a right-wing provocateur with a history of racist and conspiratorial comments, criticized Trump’s selection of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence policy in his coming administration. Krishnan favors the ability to bring more skilled immigrants into the U.S. Loomer declared the stance to be “not America First policy” and said the tech executives who have aligned themselves with Trump were doing so to enrich themselves. Much of the debate played out on the social media network X, which Musk owns. Loomer's comments sparked a back-and-forth with venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks, whom Trump has tapped to be the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar." Musk and Ramaswamy, whom Trump has tasked with finding ways to cut the federal government, weighed in, defending the tech industry's need to bring in foreign workers. It bloomed into a larger debate with more figures from the hard-right weighing in about the need to hire U.S. workers, whether values in American culture can produce the best engineers, free speech on the internet, the newfound influence tech figures have in Trump's world and what his political movement stands for. Trump has not yet weighed in on the rift, and his presidential transition team did not respond to a message seeking comment. Musk, the world's richest man who has grown remarkably close to the president-elect, was a central figure in the debate, not only for his stature in Trump's movement but his stance on the tech industry's hiring of foreign workers. Technology companies say H-1B visas for skilled workers, used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, are critical for hard-to-fill positions. But critics have said they undercut U.S. citizens who could take those jobs. Some on the right have called for the program to be eliminated, not expanded. Born in South Africa, Musk was once on an a H-1B visa himself and defended the industry's need to bring in foreign workers. “There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent," he said in a post. “It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley.” Trump's own positions over the years have reflected the divide in his movement. His tough immigration policies, including his pledge for a mass deportation, were central to his winning presidential campaign. He has focused on immigrants who come into the U.S. illegally but he has also sought curbs on legal immigration, including family-based visas. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump called the H-1B visa program “very bad” and “unfair” for U.S. workers. After he became president, Trump in 2017 issued a “Buy American and Hire American” executive order, which directed Cabinet members to suggest changes to ensure H-1B visas were awarded to the highest-paid or most-skilled applicants to protect American workers. Trump's businesses, however, have hired foreign workers, including waiters and cooks at his Mar-a-Lago club, and his social media company behind his Truth Social app has used the the H-1B program for highly skilled workers. During his 2024 campaign for president, as he made immigration his signature issue, Trump said immigrants in the country illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country" and promised to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. But in a sharp departure from his usual alarmist message around immigration generally, Trump told a podcast this year that he wants to give automatic green cards to foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges. “I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country," he told the “All-In" podcast with people from the venture capital and technology world. Those comments came on the cusp of Trump's budding alliance with tech industry figures, but he did not make the idea a regular part of his campaign message or detail any plans to pursue such changes.Storm dumps record rain and heavy snow on Northern California. Many in Seattle still without power
NoneHONG KONG/SHANGHAI: Investors in Chinese bonds head for 2025 betting there will be no miraculous recovery in the economy, putting them at odds with an equities market that has wagered on a revival in consumption. Although China’s closed capital account diminishes the 33 trillion yuan ($4.6 trillion) market’s worth as an economic forecaster, the signal from ten-year bond yields scraping record lows almost daily and long bonds falling below Japanese yields still shows a deep-set negativity about the outlook. “The bonds are basically saying that, yes, there is a (stock market) rally out there, but we don’t buy this rally for the long term,” said Bhanu Baweja, chief strategist for UBS Investment Bank in London. “Bonds are saying that this is not an earnings-based rally, this is not a reflation-based rally.” A benchmark ten-year yield down more than 80 basis points this year to a record low of 1.78 percent reflects a banking system overflowing with cash and a market broadly expecting slow growth and hardly any inflation. Bond prices move inversely to yields and, because sovereign debt is regarded as a safe asset, they are affected by a combination of inflation expectations, interest rates, creditworthiness and appetite for risk in other asset classes. Since September, as China has cut interest rates and made numerous promises to stabilize financial and property markets, boost economic growth and revive consumption, equity markets have rallied and pushed price-to-earnings ratios sharply higher. Bonds have made an almost opposite move, particularly at the long end where 30-year yields have been driven below 2 percent. Thirty-year yields in Japan, an economy which has become a byword for deflation and slow growth, are 2.24 percent. “I think the Chinese bond yields should be lower if they were to reflect the current economic situation in the country,” said Edmund Goh, investment director of fixed income at abrdn in Singapore. “We think it’s difficult to see meaningful inflation given the property situation in China now and the government is determined not to create another property bubble.” In March, China’s government set a growth target of “around 5 percent” for this year, but the world’s second-biggest economy has struggled for momentum and grew just 4.6 percent in the third quarter. Goldman Sachs sees growth slowing to 4.5 percent next year. Part of the backdrop to the bond rally is a lack of alternatives. Chinese banks are bursting with more than 300 trillion yuan in deposits and with loan growth in the doldrums, much of that ends up flowing to money markets and bonds - pushing down yields. The yield on the popular Tianhong Yu’Ebao money fund, which is China’s largest with more than 600 million investors, hit a record low at 1.266 percent this week. “Onshore lenders are facing the question of whether to give out loans to businesses, or to play it safe with risk-free Chinese government bonds,” said Clarissa Teng, fixed income allocation strategist at the chief investment office of UBS global wealth management in Hong Kong. — Reuters “Many are doing the latter, especially given that credit demand from households and corporates has been soft as well.” Risks to the bond market are some of the same factors supporting equities - that China unveils a large fiscal spending plan which requires extra borrowing and leads to higher inflation, both of which are negative for bonds. China’s central bank has also sounded uncomfortable with the scale of the rally and has actively sold bonds to slow it down. Foreign investors, including BlackRock, have also been sellers in part to take some profits after the long rally. Still, most investors say the path of least resistance is for the rally to continue with Li Kai, chief investment officer of Beijing Shengao Fund Management, expecting a 10-year yield of 1.6 percent next year and others confident in their positions. “We’re struggling to find much reason to be pessimistic about the sovereign bond market,” said analysts at Shanghai-based Shoupu Asset Management in a November letter to investors. “The facts of economic fundamentals are out there, and without strong, targeted growth-stabilizing policies, there is little resistance to the decline in bond yields.” — Reuters
Jimmy Carter: A brief bio
AKRON, Ohio — CJ Nunnally IV sacked quarterback Tucker Gleason on the final play of the game and Akron beat Toledo 21-14 in overtime on Tuesday night to end the Mid-American Conference regular season for both teams. It was Akron's first win over Toledo since the Zips beat the Rockets 31-29 on Nov. 29, 2013. Akron (4-8, 3-5) ended the season with a two-game win streak which was its only one of the year. The bowl eligible Rockets (7-5, 4-4) lost their last two games of the regular season. Down 21-14 and facing fourth-and-goal at Akron's 4, Nunnally came off the left edge as Gleason rolled right and he proceeded to roll him to the turf to end the game. Akron went up 21-14 on the first play of overtime when quarterback Ben Finley rolled right and appeared ready to tuck and run, but he pulled up and threw it to Charles Kellom who ran it in for the go-ahead score. Toledo's Dylan Cunanan missed a 29-yard field attempt as time expired at the end of regulation for the chance to win it. Cunanan earlier missed from 45 and 26 yards. The Rockets knotted it at 14 in the fourth quarter when Gleason threw a 7-yard touchdown pass to Anthony Torres and a 19-yarder to Jerjuan Newton at the end of a seven-play, 92-yard drive with 3:26 left in overtime. Akron started the scoring when Finley threw a 72-yard touchdown to Ahmarian Green in the first quarter, and Tahj Bullock ran it in from the 1 to start the fourth.B. Riley Financial Provides Update on Quarterly Filing Process
The Boston Celtics pretty much have a superstar starting five, and a few stars to come off the bench right away. However, their deep bench could use a little work. In a proposed trade by Celtics on SI’s Ryan Stano , the Celtics could increase their depth by acquiring Shake Milton from the Brooklyn Nets. This season, Milton is averaging seven points, two rebounds, and two assists in 18 minutes of playing time. He also is shooting a nice 38% from deep. In the trade, the Celtics would get Milton, and the Nets would get Jaden Springer and a second-rounder. This works for the Nets because they aren’t in a position to win at all, and getting a young prospect and an asset could be useful for a future rebuild. For the Celtics, they get someone who can come off the bench and fit into their play style seamlessly. He is a great defender, and can come off the bench and launch threes. Should the Celtics consider this trade? Possibly. Their past few games have been a little hectic, and getting some bench depth could help resolve that. MORE CELTICS CONTENT: Celtics superstar Jayson Tatum reveals details on why he missed loss to Magic with illness Proposed three-team trade would see Celtics move on from superstar center Celtics trade proposal sees team make deal with eternal rival in three-team trade Celtics superstar says he's fine with not winning MVP and would rather win another NBA Finals Celtics reportedly interested in trading for $18.6 million dollar Grizzlies wingNoneExtensive confidential documents in the lead-up to the collapse of Northern Ireland’s institutions in 2002 have been made available to the public as part of annual releases from the Irish National Archives. They reveal that the Irish Government wanted to appeal to the UK side against “manipulating” every scenario for favourable election results in Northern Ireland, in an effort to protect the peace process. In the years after the landmark 1998 Good Friday Agreement, a number of outstanding issues left the political environment fraught with tension and disagreement. Mr Trimble, who won a Nobel Peace Prize with SDLP leader John Hume for their work on the Agreement, was keen to gain wins for the UUP on policing, ceasefire audits and paramilitary disarmament – but also to present his party as firmer on these matters amid swipes from its Unionist rival, the DUP. These issues were at the front of his mind as he tried to steer his party into Assembly elections planned for May 2003 and continue in his role as the Executive’s first minister despite increasing political pressure. The documents reveal the extent to which the British and Irish Governments were trying to delicately resolve the contentious negotiations, conscious that moves seen as concessions to one group could provoke anger on the other side. In June 2002, representatives of the SDLP reported to Irish officials on a recent meeting between Mr Hume’s successor Mark Durkan and Prime Minister Tony Blair on policing and security. Mr Blair is said to have suggested that the SDLP and UUP were among those who both supported and took responsibility for the Good Friday Agreement. The confidential report of the meeting says that Mr Durkan, the deputy First Minister, was not sure that Mr Trimble had been correctly categorised. The Prime Minister asked if the SDLP could work more closely with the UUP ahead of the elections. Mr Durkan argued that Mr Trimble was not only not saleable to nationalists, but also not saleable to half of the UUP – to which Mr Blair and Northern Ireland Secretary John Reid are said to have laughed in agreement. The SDLP leader further warned that pursuing a “save David” campaign would ruin all they had worked for. Damien McAteer, an adviser for the SDLP, was recorded as briefing Irish officials on September 10 that it was his view that Mr Trimble was intent on collapsing the institutions in 2003 over expected fallout for Sinn Fein in the wake of the Colombia Three trial, where men linked to the party were charged with training Farc rebels – but predicted the UUP leader would be “in the toilet” by January, when an Ulster Unionist Council (UUC) meeting was due to take place. A week later in mid September, Mr Trimble assured Irish premier Bertie Ahern that the next UUC meeting to take place in two days’ time would be “okay but not great” and insisted he was not planning to play any “big game”. It was at that meeting that he made the bombshell announcement that the UUP would pull out of the Executive if the IRA had not disbanded by January 18. The move came as a surprise to the Irish officials who, along with their UK counterparts, did not see the deadline as realistic. Sinn Fein described the resolution as a “wreckers’ charter”. Doubts were raised that there would be any progress on substantive issues as parties would not be engaged in “pre-election skirmishing”. As that could lead to a UUP walkout and the resulting suspension of the institutions, the prospect of delaying the elections was raised while bringing forward the vote was ruled out. Therefore, the two Governments stressed the need to cooperate as a stabilising force to protect the Agreement – despite not being sure how that process would survive through the January 18 deadline. The Irish officials became worried that the British side did not share their view that Mr Trimble was not “salvageable” and that the fundamental dynamic in the UUP was now Agreement scepticism, the confidential documents state. In a meeting days after the UUC announcements, Mr Reid is recorded in the documents as saying that as infuriating as it was, Mr Trimble was at that moment the “most enlightened Unionist we have”. The Secretary said he would explore what the UUP leader needed to “survive” the period between January 18 and the election, believing a significant prize could avoid him being “massacred”. Such planning went out the window just weeks later, when hundreds of PSNI officers were involved in raids of several buildings – including Sinn Fein’s offices in Stormont. The resulting “Stormontgate” spy-ring scandal accelerated the collapse of powersharing, with the UUP pulling out of the institutions – and the Secretary of State suspending the Assembly and Executive on October 14. For his part, Irish officials were briefed that Mr Reid was said to be “gung ho” about the prospect of exercising direct rule – reportedly making no mention of the Irish Government in a meeting with Mr Trimble and Mr Durkan on that day. The Northern Ireland Secretary was given a new role and Paul Murphy was appointed as his successor. A note on speaking points for a meeting with Mr Murphy in April showed that the Irish side believed the May elections should go ahead: “At a certain stage the political process has to stand on its own feet. “The Governments cannot be manipulating and finessing every scenario to engineer the right result. “We have to start treating the parties and the people as mature and trusting that they have the discernment to make the right choices.” However, the elections planned for May did not materialise, instead delayed until November. Mr Trimble would go on to lose his Westminster seat – and stewardship of the UUP – in 2005. The November election saw the DUP emerge as the largest parties – but direct rule continued as Ian Paisley’s refused to share power with Sinn Fein, which Martin McGuinness’ colleagues. The parties eventually agreed to work together following further elections in 2007. – This article is based on documents in 2024/130/5, 2024/130/6, 2024/130/15
The best touchless trash cans for modern, mess-free livingTapestry Inc. stock rises Tuesday, still underperforms market
NoneBy Marshall Cohen , CNN Smartmatic, the voting technology company suing Fox News over its promotion of 2020 election lies, is trying to obtain evidence from the secret court battle between Rupert Murdoch and his children over the future of his right-wing media empire. For the first time, Smartmatic has gone directly to the probate court in Nevada and asked a commissioner to turn over some of the secret documents in that case, a source told CNN. The voting technology company wants to examine sealed documents from the family fight that it thinks will bolster its defamation lawsuit against Fox, according to a source familiar with recent filings in the Murdoch trust case. The source said these documents could include transcripts of depositions or trial testimony from media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his and family members, who control Fox's parent company After Donald Trump lost the 2020 election, many of Fox News' on-air hosts and guests falsely accused Smartmatic of rigging the results to help elect Joe Biden. Those lies are at the heart of Smartmatic's massive defamation suit against Fox News and its parent company, Fox Corporation. The Fox entities vehemently deny that they defamed anyone. The Murdoch family has battled over succession in compete secrecy in a Reno court. Earlier this month, a probate commissioner rejected an attempt by Murdoch, 93, to retool the irrevocable family trust so his most conservative son, Lachlan, could singularly lead Fox Corporation after his death, instead of sharing power with his three siblings as planned. The source said Smartmatic's filings say testimony from the Nevada case might contradict past assertions in the 2020 election litigation, where Fox claimed control of the parent company doesn't impact the editorial direction of Fox News. In the Nevada case, Rupert has argued that Lachlan must succeed him in order to maintain his outlet's right-wing political bent. On the public docket in Nevada, there are indications that an outside party filed a motion last week. The records are sealed and CNN has not obtained Smartmatic's filing. A Fox spokesperson and attorneys for the Murdochs did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Lawyers for Fox previously said in Smartmatic's election defamation case that they oppose disseminating the records from the family trust fight. "That litigation is entirely irrelevant to this case," Fox lawyer Winn Allen told a judge during a hearing last month. "That is litigation pending in a Nevada probate court, and concerns changes that Mr. Murdoch made to the family trust in 2023, years after the alleged conduct in this case... It has nothing at all to do with the issues in this case." CNN previously reported that the Nevada probate commissioner eviscerated Rupert and Lachlan for acting in "bad faith" to manipulate the family trust, rejecting their bid to amend the family trust. They can appeal the decision. That ruling was sealed. The New York Times, which obtained the full 96-page ruling, reported that the commissioner further concluded Rupert's proposal was a "carefully crafted charade" and that his representatives "demonstrated a dishonesty of purpose and motive." Smartmatic's defamation case against Fox is slated for trial next year in New York, unless there is an out-of-court settlement, which is common in these cases. Smartmatic is also trying to obtain the Nevada records through the discovery phase of the New York litigation. The lawsuit is just one of many 2020-related cases that are still pending in the courts. Smartmatic is suing Trump allies Mike Lindell and Sidney Powell. The company has settled similar litigation against conservative network Newsmax and the far-right channel One America News. A separate but similarly aggrieved voting technology company, Dominion Voting Systems, famously settled with Fox for more than US$787 million after jury selection began in that defamation trial last year. Dominion is still suing Newsmax, OAN and other Trump allies. All of the media outlets and Trump allies facing lawsuits deny wrongdoing. - CNNNBA Cup elimination means Lakers get valuable rest and time for physical practice
Proposed Celtics trade would land $9 million dollar guard in Boston to increase roster depth | Sporting News
Smokers who quit for a week could save a day of their life, experts sayIan Schieffelin came within two assists of a triple-double and Clemson handed Penn State its first loss with a 75-67 decision for the championship of the Sunshine Slam tournament Tuesday in Daytona Beach, Fla. Schieffelin finished with 18 points, 13 rebounds and eight assists for the Tigers (6-1), leading four players in double figures. Chase Hunter added 17 points, while Chauncey Wiggins scored 14 and reserve Del Jones chipped in 10 points. Clemson sank 9 of 19 3-pointers, converted 16 of 20 free throws and was able to limit the impact of the Nittany Lions' full-court pressure. The Tigers committed just 13 turnovers, helping them hold Penn State (6-1) to less than 85 points for the first time this year. Ace Baldwin starred in defeat with game highs of 20 points and 11 assists, while center Yanic Konan Niederhauser added 14 points. Nick Kern came off the bench to score 11 but Penn State was outscored 15-2 on the fast break and made just 4 of 18 attempts from 3-point range. Schieffelin came up big down the stretch, assisting on a 3-pointer by Jaeden Zackery with 6:04 left that made it 65-61. Then he made two foul shots and tossed in a jump hook from the lane to up the margin to 71-66 with 1:03 left. The big storyline going into this game was which team would be able to control the pace. Penn State came in averaging 96 ppg, while Clemson demonstrated its ability to enforce a slower tempo in March, advancing to a regional final in the NCAA Tournament. In the first 10 minutes of the game, the Tigers made the Nittany Lions play at a crawl, opening up a 17-10 advantage when Schieffelin converted a short hook in the lane. But Penn State answered with an 18-4 run over nearly six minutes, establishing a 28-21 lead when Kern shook free for a layup. Clemson rallied with nine straight points but the Nittany Lions had the last say as Baldwin converted a layup with 24 seconds left, cutting the Tigers' edge to 38-36 at halftime. --Field Level MediaThis story was originally published by Yale E360 and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. The angry Alaskans gathered in Fairbanks to burn the president’s effigy. It was early December 1978 and President Jimmy Carter was that unpopular in Alaska. A few days earlier Carter had issued an unusual executive order, designating 56 million acres of Alaskan wilderness as a national monument. He did so unilaterally, using a little known 1906 Antiquities Act that ostensibly gave the president the executive power to designate buildings or small plots of historical sites on federal land as national monuments. No previous president had ever used the obscure act to create a vast wilderness area. But Congress was refusing to pass the necessary legislation, so Carter, who passed away Sunday at the age of 100, decided to act alone. The Alaskan political establishment was flabbergasted. Despite the unpopularity of the unusual sequestration order, Carter announced that it would stand until Congress agreed to pass its own legislation. For the next two years Carter stubbornly held his ground, explaining that he wasn’t opposed to oil and gas development, but that he would not accept any bill that jeopardized the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge—the calving grounds and migratory route for one of the world’s last great caribou herds. Finally, Alaska’s senior politician, Republican Senator Ted Stevens agreed in late 1980 to break the impasse. At one point in their wrangling over what became known as the Alaska Lands Act, Senator Stevens argued that one small region should be excluded from the proposed wilderness refuge. “Well, let’s check that,” Carter said. The president then rolled out an oversized map on the floor of the Oval Office. Stevens was astonished to see the president on his hands and knees, inspecting the area in question. “No, I don’t think you are right,” Carter observed. “You see, this little watershed here doesn’t actually go into that one. It comes over here.” The senator had to concede the point, and on the car ride back to Capitol Hill he turned to his aide and remarked, “He knows more about Alaska than I do.” Sen. Ted Stevens and President Carter discuss the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act. Anchorage Daily News/Tribune News Service/Getty That was vintage Carter, the president who always paid attention to details. But it also illustrates Carter’s legacy as a president devoted to protecting the environment. Carter was still negotiating with Senator Stevens weeks after his defeat in the November 1980 election. But on December 2, 1980, this now lame-duck president signed the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act, creating more than 157 million acres of wilderness area, national wildlife refuges, and national parks—tripling the size of the nation’s Wilderness Preservation System and doubling the size of the National Park System. It was, and still is, the largest single expansion of protected lands in American history. More than four decades later, before he entered hospice care in his simple Plains, Georgia home in February, Carter signed an amicus brief, appealing to the courts and President Joe Biden, not to permit the building of a gravel road through one small portion of the designated wilderness area. It was his last act in the public arena. And it succeeded: On March 14, 2023, the Interior Department canceled a plan that would have allowed the road’s construction. Carter was always annoyed when pundits proclaimed him a “model” ex-president, but a failed president. And he was right to be annoyed because his was actually a quite consequential presidency, and no more so than on questions of conservation and the environment. Carter signs the Energy Bill on November 9, 1978. HUM Images/Universal Images Group/Getty Early in his presidency, in the spring of 1977, he famously vetoed a slew of water projects, mostly small dams and river diversion facilities, in dozens of congressional districts around the country. Federal funding of such projects was often a waste of taxpayer funds. And these boondoggles, always encouraged by the US Army Corps of Engineers, often harmed the rivers’ natural habitat. Carter knew he was doing the right thing—even though it eroded his support in a Democratic-controlled Congress. Carter’s instincts for conservation had been evident earlier when, as governor of Georgia, he had opposed unbridled commercial development, favored tough regulations to protect the state’s coastal wetlands, and endorsed the creation of two major seashores and river parks. But when Carter got to the White House, he shocked many observers by appointing James Gustave Speth, age 35, to the President’s Council on Environmental Quality. Speth was regarded by the Washington establishment as a radical on environmental issues. A Yale-trained lawyer and Rhodes Scholar, he had co-founded in 1970 the Natural Resources Defense Council, a tough advocacy group on environmental issues. Speth, who later served as dean of the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, used his position in the administration to educate Carter about the dangers of acid rain, carbon dioxide buildup in the atmosphere, and the likely extinction of 100,000 species during the next quarter century. Just before leaving office, Carter released a prophetic report, largely written by Speth, that predicted “widespread and pervasive changes in global climatic, economic, social and agricultural patterns” if humanity continued to rely on fossil fuels. The Global 2000 Report to the President became an early clarion call for scientists studying climate change. The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Danielle Brigida/US Fish and Wildlife Service History will judge Carter as a president ahead of his time. He set a goal of producing 20 percent of the nation’s energy from renewable sources by 2000. In an age of soaring energy prices and stagflation, he famously wore a cardigan on national television during a fireside chat in which he urged Americans to lower their thermostats and conserve energy. He put solar water heating panels on the roof of the White House, telling reporters, “A generation from now this solar heater can either be a curiosity, a museum piece, an example of a road not taken, or it can be just a small part of one of the greatest and most exciting adventures ever undertaken by the American people.” Ironically, while Carter put federal money into solar energy research, a few years later his successor Ronald Reagan ripped the solar panels off the White House roof—and a few are still displayed in museums. Carter spent much of his time in office trying to deal with energy issues. He proposed a 283-page National Energy Act (NEA) that included a tax on oversized, gas-guzzling cars, tax credits for home insulation, and investments in solar and wind technologies. Carter insisted that his energy bill was the “moral equivalent of war.” In response, The Wall Street Journal labeled it with the sarcastic acronym MEOW. Republican Party chairman Bill Brock charged that the president was “driving people out of their family cars.” Michigan Democratic Congressman John Dingell told Carter aides that it was an “asinine bill.” The legislation nevertheless passed the House, but then encountered much more opposition in the Senate. Carter complained in a private White House diary, “The influence of the oil and gas industry is unbelievable, and it’s impossible to arouse the public to protect themselves.” Carter announces his solar energy policy in front of PV panels installed on the West Wing roof. Warren Leffler/Library of Congress The final bill, passed in October 1978, was a complicated compromise—but it did impose penalties on gas-guzzling cars, required higher efficiency standards for home appliances, and provided tax incentives to develop wind and solar technologies. But environmentalists would criticize it for also providing incentives to mine domestic coal and produce corn-based gasohol. Carter’s goal here was to lessen the country’s dependence on imported Arab oil—and in this he was marginally successful, leading to a decline in oil imports during his term in office. But in an unintended consequence, environmentalists would complain that a part of the bill required that any new power plants be fired with fuels other than oil or natural gas. In practice, that meant coal received a major boost. In retrospect, the most consequential part of the energy bill was the phased decontrol of natural gas prices. This deregulation eventually stimulated exploration for natural gas in the United States and created the market conditions decades later for the innovative fracking technology that would make the country a major supplier of liquefied natural gas. Politically speaking, Carter’s energy policies were criticized by both sides. He was faulted by liberals for enacting too much deregulation, while conservatives perceived him as an enemy of the oil and gas industry. Former President Carter with grandson Jason Carter during a ribbon cutting for a solar project on family farmland in Plains, Georgia. David Goldman/AP If environmentalists should remember one thing about the Carter presidency it should be his so-called “malaise speech” in July 1979. It was an extraordinary sermon about America’s limits—a most un-American idea for a people constantly fed on the manna of manifest destiny. “We’ve always had a faith that the days of our children would be better than our own,” he said. “Our people are losing that faith...In a nation that was once proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.” Taking a page straight from Christopher Lasch’s The Culture of Narcissism (which Carter had recently read), Carter observed, “Human identity is no longer defined by what one does, but by what one owns. But we’ve discovered that owning things and consuming things does not satisfy our longing for meaning. We’ve learned that piling up material goods cannot fill the emptiness of lives which have no confidence or purpose.” This was the born-again Southern Baptist in Jimmy Carter speaking, the Southern populist, warning his people about the need to be aware of our environment’s fragility and limitations. It was not a message most Americans wanted to hear. But it remains a key part of his presidential legacy.
B. Riley Financial Provides Update on Quarterly Filing ProcessPhinma tops up war chest for project pipelineJimmy Carter: A brief bioStocks drop in thin year-end trade amid tax selling, profit taking
Minutes of an Executive meeting from June of that year state further action would be considered “as appropriate” if the DUP went ahead with a threat to rotate its ministers. The minutes are within files which have been declassified at the Public Record Office in Belfast. Devolved powersharing had been restored to Northern Ireland in May 2000 when Ulster Unionist leader David Trimble had received the backing of his party to go back into the Assembly, despite there having been no decommissioning of IRA arms at that point. Then DUP deputy leader Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds took up the offices as ministers for regional development and social development, but refused to attend Executive meetings due to the presence of Sinn Fein ministers. The party also said it would rotate its ministerial posts to prevent other parties from taking them. A minute of an Executive meeting on June 8 said Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds had refused a request from First Minister Mr Trimble and deputy First Minister Seamus Mallon to meet with them “to discuss recent public comments by the DUP concerning their positions as ministers”. The minute records that the Executive endorsed a proposal from the First and deputy First Ministers to write again to the two DUP ministers setting out sanctions against them. It says: “The First Minister and and Deputy First Minister would assume responsibility for representing the Executive Committee on transport matters at the British-Irish Council in place of the Minister for Regional Development. “The Minister for Social Development and the Minister for Regional Development would not be nominated to attend meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committee. “Pending the receipt of satisfactory assurances from DUP Ministers regarding the confidentiality and integrity of Executive Committee business, the Minister for Social Development and Minister for Regional Development would not receive Executive Committee papers as of right. “The First Minister and Deputy First Minister would seek briefing, as appropriate, from officials in the Department for Regional Development and Department for Social Development.” The minute continues: “If the DUP carried out their threat to change the holders of the two Ministerial offices on a frequent basis, the Executive Committee would consider other action as appropriate.” Mr Robinson and Mr Dodds resigned as ministers on June 27 and were replaced by party colleagues Gregory Campbell and Maurice Morrow. A minute from an Executive meeting that day says: “The Executive Committee noted that the Minister for Social Development and Minister for Regional Development would be resigning their posts that afternoon, and expressed concern at the proposed rotation of the ministries held by their Party Members.”