Black Astronauts Conquering the Final Frontier

Orthopedic surgeon Robert Satcher put his considerable skills to work in space, repairing a robotic arm on NASA’s International Space Station.

Colleague Randolph Bresnik told Satcher his work was “the highest recorded orthopedic surgery — ever."

And there was another first. Satcher is the first orthopedic surgeon in space.

A much honored scholar and researcher, Satcher was selected by NASA in 2004 for the space program and completed astronaut candidate training in 2006. The mission specialist is one of six crew members on a mission to the International Space Station that will feature three space walks and bring home fellow astronaut Nicole Scott.

Before joining NASA, Satcher was an assistant professor at The Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, in the Department of Orthopaedic Surgery. He also held an appointment as an attending physician in orthopaedic surgery at Children’s Memorial Hospital in Chicago, specializing in Musculoskeletal Oncology; and an adjunct appointment in the Biomedical Engineering Department at Northeastern University School of Engineering.

Satcher also completed numerous medical missions for outreach care to underserved areas in Nicaraugua, Venezuala, Nigeria, Burkina Faso, and Gabon.

Closer to home, Satcher has been active in numerous community organizations including Big Brother for Youth at Risk Counseling Program, Department of Corrections, San Francisco, California; Tutor for Black Student's Union Tutorial Program, MIT; National Society of Black Engineers; American Institute of Chemical Engineering; Supervising Adult for Cub Scout Camp for Boys, Nashville, Tennessee; Proctor for Freshman Dormitory at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts; Lay Episcopal Minister (primary responsibility is visiting sick and shut in members of church) at St. Edmund’s Episcopal Church, Chicago, Illinois and at St. James Episcopal Church in Houston, Texas.

Joining Satcher on this trip is fellow mission specialist Leland Melvin, who is an expert in fiber optics and aerospace structures and materials, especially in the development of launch vehicles for space.

The Lynchburg, Virginia native has won eight NASA Outstanding Performance Awards, two NASA Superior Accomplishment Awards and the key to the City of Lynchburg. An avid sports enthusiastic and college athlete, Melvin was an NCAA Division I Academic All-American and is a University of Richmond Athletic Hall of Fame Inductee. He was chosen by the Detroit Lions in the 11th round of the 1986 NFL college draft, and he also participated in the Toronto Argonauts and Dallas Cowboys football training camps.

Melvin, who joined the astronaut training in August 1998, has served the Astronaut Office Space Station Operations Branch, the Education Department at NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C, and the Robotics Branch of the Astronaut Office. As co-manager of NASA's Educator Astronaut Program, Melvin traveled across the country, educating thousands of students and teachers about space exploration and encouraging them to pursue careers in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

The mission can be followed on Facebook. And a Friday morning interview on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show" with Melvin and Satcher can be viewed live at www.nasa.gov/ntv.

A person has died after a Miley Cyrus tour bus crash

An accident which involved singer Miley Cyrus's tour bus has killed one passenger, US police have confirmed.

Sergeant Thomas Molnar said the bus - which the teenage singer was not on at the time - overturned as it travelled on a main road in central Virginia.

One of the other nine passengers suffered minor injuries.

The 16-year-old's website said the Hannah Montana star is expected to perform Sunday in Greensboro, North Carolina.

The Disney star is scheduled to play two dates in London next month.

Cyrus, who is the daughter of country singer Billy Ray, began her solo singing career in 2007 with her debut album, Meet Miley Cyrus.

UN Nuclear Chief Urges Iran to Send Uranium Abroad

Mohamed ElBaradei says he hopes Iran will not miss what he calls "unique but fleeting opportunity" to send uranium abroad for further enrichment. He spoke as officials from Germany and the five permanent members of the UN Security Council prepared to hold talks in Brussels on Iran's nuclear program.


The head of the U.N. nuclear agency is urging Iran to accept an offer to send its uranium abroad for further enrichment.

Mohamed ElBaradei says he hopes Iran will not miss what he called a "unique but fleeting opportunity." He says it is Iran's turn to decide how it wants to proceed on the issue.

ElBaradei spoke as officials from Germany and the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council (the United States, Britain, France, China and Russia) prepare to hold talks Friday in Brussels on Iran's nuclear program.

On Wednesday, Iran's Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki said his country will not process its enriched uranium abroad -- as called for by a U.N.-brokered proposal -- and will consider only a uranium-for-fuel swap inside Iran.

U.S. President Barack Obama says his administration has begun talks with allies on the consequences of Iran's failure to respond to the proposed deal.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said his government may consider better relations with the West, but only if it changed what he called its "arrogant" attitude and returned some of its nation's assets.

Iran has not suspended its uranium enrichment activities, despite three rounds of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Enriched uranium produces fuel that can be used for civilian purposes, or in highly enriched form, for nuclear weapons.

Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes.

Fox News airs old footage from 2008 Palin rallies to pump up Palin's 2009 book tour. I filed an FCC complaint!

Think Progress caught Fox News using old campaign footage of a McCain/Palin rally from 2008 to make it appear like the crowds she's drawing on her book tour are larger than they are.

Think Progress:

This afternoon, Fox News host Gregg Jarrett proudly announced that Sarah Palin is “continuing to draw huge crowds while she’s promoting her brand new book. Take a look at — these are some of the pictures just coming into us.” But the pictures that the network chose to display on-air appeared to be old file footage of Palin rallies from the 2008 presidential campaign. Individuals in the crowd are seen holding McCain/Palin signs, and others are holding pom-poms and cheering wildly. “There’s a crowd of folks,” an enthused Jarrett observed, referring to the old footage.

Media Matters followed up that report with more facts to support the claim, which in my mind should be called a HOAX.

Earlier, Think Progress caught Fox News showing what was clearly footage of 2008 Sarah Palin campaign rallies but claiming that it was video of "huge crowds" attending Palin's book tour.

But in case the McCain-Palin campaign signs and tee-shirts clearly visible in the footage Fox aired aren't enough to make Fox apologize, here's further proof.

Here's a screenshot of the footage of one of the rallies that Fox's Gregg Jarrett showed today and claimed was "just coming into us" as part of the book tour:

And here's a photo posted last year by Florida TV station CFNews 13 of a November 1, 2008, Palin rally in Ocala, Florida:And here's a video of that same rally that TPM posted way back in 2008 -- when it actually happened.

Fox News is not operating like a news organization. It was busted by Jon Stewart of the Daily Show when Sean Hannity used the same technique to make it seem like a tea party rally was bigger than it actually was. And you know Hannity was told to apologize by "legal" over the "Hoax" he tried to get away with. Inadvertent footage doesn't end up on a network show. That's a bogus explanation.

The Realist Prism: Horse Trading with Beijing

During his trip to Asia, President Barack Obama laid out a grand rhetorical vision for the future: a U.S.-China partnership working together to solve the world's most pressing issues. Speaking in Japan, Obama declared, "America will approach China with a focus on our interests. It's precisely for this reason that it is important to pursue pragmatic cooperation with China on issues of mutual concern, because no one nation can meet the challenges of the 21st century alone, and the United States and China will both be better off when we are able to meet them together."

It sounds very dramatic, almost like a form of co-dominion, with two global powers sharing the burdens of maintaining the international order.

There's just one small problem, of course: That is not what the United States is offering.

Washington still hopes that China will be satisfied with a "reformed" global system, one that might give Beijing a greater say in world affairs but would leave the United States in the position of chairman of the board (and the principal agenda-setter to boot). This is why Li Hongmei, an editor at People's Daily Online, characterizes the president's rhetoric as part of the same general U.S. strategy of "setting a limit on China's rise and growth by offering definitions and assessments of China's role in the international system. This also reflects the paradox in American logic: On the one hand, it needs China's leverage to combat the thorny problems facing all -- like climate change, nuclear threat and terrorism; while on the other hand, it will be on guard against China's rise as a global power, which they fear would overshadow the U.S."

The Full Story

Most Republicans think ACORN stole the 2008 election

If you ever doubted Fox's political power, look no further than these new poll results from PPP:

The poll asked this question: "Do you think that Barack Obama legitimately won the Presidential election last year, or do you think that ACORN stole it for him?" The overall top-line is legitimately won 62%, ACORN stole it 26%.

Among Republicans, however, only 27% say Obama actually won the race, with 52% -- an outright majority -- saying that ACORN stole it, and 21% are undecided.

These sorts of numbers would not be possible without Fox, and I'm not just talking about their endless promotion of the ACORN "sting" videos.

It's important to remember that Fox's obsession with ACORN is nothing new. Indeed, before the 2008 election they breathlessly warned that ACORN was trying to steal the vote.

To give you an idea of just how long Fox has been building this ACORN narrative, check out this example: during one four-day period in the middle of October, 2008, Fox mentioned ACORN four times as frequently as CNN and MSNBC combined.

FNC MSNBC CNN
Mentions of ACORN 706 67 112

No well-informed person could believe that ACORN stole the election from John McCain, but in large part thanks to Fox News, nobody has ever accused the Republican base of being well-informed.

The AIG Bailout Is Still A Mystery Shrouded In Lies

Will we ever know why AIG was bailed out and why its credit default swap counterparties were made whole?

When AIG first began to ask for a bridge loan from the Federal Reserve, the public was told that AIG wanted additional "liquidity" to avoid a ratings downgrade. This implied that AIG's problem was relatively modest, related only to a temporary gap between funding for liquidity and its obligations. As we now know, AIG needed far more than the $40 "bridge loan" it originally requested.

Initially, there was skepticism that the Fed would provide a loan to an insurance company. This was far outside the scope of the Fed's traditional role of lending to banks it regulated. Some thought it might not be legal for the Fed to lend to AIG--we only later learned that the Fed can do whatever it wants.

But why did the Fed bailout AIG? And why did they do it in a way that was so generous to the CDS counterparties? What overcame the initial resistance to bailout out AIG?

For the past year, the reigning theory has been that the New York Fed and the Treasury Department decided to bailout AIG to prevent collateral damage to the banks and other financial institutions that had purchased credit default swaps from AIG. The idea is that a bankruptcy of AIG would have forced, say, Goldman Sachs to mark-down the swap contracts to zero, which would then have triggered a need to mark down the insured securities. As those securities were marked down, they may have rendered some already thinly capitalized banks insolvent or at least pushed their reserve capital requirements below regulatory requirements.

This initially prompted many of those who saw the deal wonder why those creditors, many of whom might have received just pennies on the dollar in an AIG bankruptcy, were apparently made whole. Were they really so thinly capitalized that any haircut would have triggered system-wide failures? If so, AIG was just a covert bailout of the rest of the unhealthy financial firms.

We've known for a couple of weeks now that some of the counterparties believed they were healthy enough to accept at least some discount on the CDS payout. Others, especially a pair of giant French banks, apparently believed they were under legal obligations not to accept a haircut by a company that hadn't been declared insolvent by a bankruptcy court. Still others just seem to have played a game of chicken with the US government--refusing to accept any deal because they suspected eventually the government would be forced to pay them out whole.

But in his recent testimony to a Congressional panel, Tim Geithner said the CDS counterparty theory is wrong. AIG was really bailed out to save ordinary American individuals and businesses that had purchased insurance from the company. It wasn't the failure of derivative contracts or thinly capitalized financial firms but the failure of AIGs traditional insurance business that had the regulators worried.

"This is startling," the WSJ editorial page explains.

Yet, if there is one thing that all observers seemed to agree on last year, it was that AIG's money to pay policyholders was segregated and safe inside the regulated insurance subsidiaries. If the real systemic danger was the condition of these highly regulated subsidiaries—where there was no CDS trading—then the Beltway narrative implodes.

So what the hell was going on? Was it insurance contracts or derivatives? Both?

We suspect that answer is actually neither. All of these explanations assume that regulators knew what they were doing and provided a rational response to a perceived threat. But that doesn't match what we know about the regulators in the fall of 2008.

Hank Paulson only learned of the deep problems at AIG from a side conversation with private equity financier who was attempting to buy a piece of the company. Neither Paulson nor Geithner had understood that a private-sector rescue of Lehman Brothers would be impossible. The chaos in money market funds that followed Lehman's collapse caught them unaware. They were in a panic about the "unknown unknowns."

There is something annoying about having to speculate about the bailout. Under an allegedly republican form of government, major decisions by the US government should come with publicly articulated explanations that can be judged on their merits. What we're stuck with now is more like Kremlinology, trying to judge the secret rationales and beneficiaries of government policy. If that proverbial martian landed on earth and noticed the celebrations of 20th anniversary of fall of the Berlin Wall, we'd have to excuse some confusion on his part about whether the east or west had triumphed.