. Last Spacewalk Of U.S. Shuttle Era Over

 Last Spacewalk Of U.S. Shuttle Era Over  :The last spacewalk of the shuttle era ended on Tuesday at the International Space Station, where Atlantis is docked on the final mission of the 30-year US Program, reported the AFP.

A pair of U.S. astronauts - Ron Garan and Mike Fossum - were already aboard the ISS as a part of the six-member international Expedition 28 crew. They successfully completed their repair and maintenance tasks at the lab after Atlantis arrived on Sunday.

                                                                                                                                                                                                   The crew of four American astronauts aboard the Atlantis helped support the spacewalk, which was choreographed by mission specialist Rex Walheim and formally ended at 3:53 pm.

The main objective of the spacewalk was to retrieve a failed ammonia pump from the orbiting outpost and place it into the shuttle's payload for return to Earth. The task was accomplished early in the six hour, 31 minute spacewalk.

The pair also attached a Robotic Refueling Module experiment to the lab. The RRM is a joint US-Canadian project aims to test technologies for repairing and refueling satellites in space.

Wall Street up as JPMorgan lifts debt gloom

Wall Street up as JPMorgan lifts debt gloom :NEW YORK: Stocks rose after the open on Thursday as higher profit from JPMorgan offset concern about Moody's threat to downgrade the United States' top credit rating if the federal debt ceiling is not raised.
A report showing a drop in new claims for U.S. jobless benefits last week also boosted stocks.                                                                          

                                                                                                                                                                                                               The Dow Jones industrial average <. DJI> was up 11.35 points, or 0.09 percent, at 12,502.96. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index <. SPX> was up 3.36 points, or 0.25 percent, at 1,321.08. The Nasdaq Composite Index <. IXIC> was up 5.31 points, or 0.19 percent, at 2,802.23.

The Euro Crisis: How Much Worse Can It Get?

  The Euro Crisis: How Much Worse Can It Get? :With the euro staggering from one crisis to the next, the 17 euro-zone nations are facing some tough questions, but the most pressing one this week seemed to be about scheduling: is it serious enough to warrant an emergency summit meeting? Plans for a Friday gathering in Brussels were hastily rolled out on Tuesday, but when German Chancellor Angela Merkel nixed them the next day, they were just as sharply postponed. If the euro zone's leaders can't even agree when to meet, what hope is there for the euro itself?                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        With every passing day bringing ever-worse news, the leaders will doubtless be wondering how bad it can get. You could say that crisis management is the euro zone's current default mode - if the word "default" was not such a loaded term when it comes to the debts of certain embattled members of Europe's single currency. (Read how the Greek economic crisis is threatening the euro.)
Just two weeks ago, Greece narrowly passed an austerity law aimed at securing key funding and buying precious time for the embattled euro zone, which is still struggling to put together a second Greek bailout package. Yet the respite lasted only a brief moment before the euro once again tumbled into a downward spiral that shows no sign of recovering.
On Wednesday, credit-ratings agency Moody's downgraded Irish government debt to junk status, following similar downgrades for Portugal last week and Greece last year. Thanks to the growth-choking austerity demands of their bailouts, none of the three countries are expected to see a quick turnaround in their fortunes. According to analysis by Citigroup banking group, Greece's ratio of gross debt to output will have risen to 180% by 2014, while Ireland's will grow to 145% and Portugal's 135%. (See photos of the protests in Athens.)
And as much as it dominates the debate, leaving the euro zone is not an easy option. Daniel Gros, director of the Centre for European Policy Studies, a Brussels-based think tank, says that Athens might ultimately require more than € 400 billion ($ 565 billion) in official support - almost 200% of its GDP today. But if Greece were forced to abandon the euro after a messy default, its nominal GDP would likely be halved. "In that case, the Greek government's debt to its euro-zone partners would be equivalent to 400% of its GDP, very little of which would be repaid," he says. On July 11, euro zone finance ministers all but conceded that Greece is likely to default as they tried to agree a scheme to encourage private and public sector bond-holders to swap existing Greek bonds for new, longer-maturing bonds, thereby giving the country more time to pay them back.
But the Greek default they are hoping to head off is just part of the crisis that is threatening to contaminate other euro-zone members. Borrowing costs have soared for Italy and Spain - respectively the third and fourth largest economies in the euro zone - despite hasty pledges from their finance ministers to take further debt-cutting measures. (See the Top 10 Things You Didn't Know About Money.)
Italy and Spain insist that they are secure, but their economies are increasingly seen by markets as the next in a line of dominos: yields on both of their 10-year bonds are now hovering around 6%, meaning the interest rates on their debts are twice as high as those on Germany's. They are nearing the unaffordable levels that could trigger talk of default. Despite this, Spain's Finance Minister Elena Salgado insisted on Monday that Italy and Spain have "strong economies" and that there is no logic to them being affected by market instability.
The case of Italy is particularly worrisome for the euro zone: the country is a founding member of the European Union, a member of the G-8 and, by most accounts, the world's eighth biggest economy. Italian officials point to their large, diversified economy and their high savings rate as reasons to dismiss the market jitters. But not only does the country have a debt-to-GDP ratio of 120%, economic growth is anemic: In the first quarter of this year it was just 0.1%, well below the euro zone average of 0.8%. That helps explain why the odds are shortening on Italy being the next European economy to receive a bailout - literally: Irish bookmaker Paddy Power says Italy is now odds-on to be bailed out by the end of this year, along with Spain

Who will suffer if there's no debt-ceiling deal

  Who will suffer if there's no debt-ceiling deal :Are they bluffing? Or could Washington politicians really torpedo the economy by refusing to raise the nation's borrowing limit?
The conventional wisdom is that the debt-ceiling drama is mostly political posturing. Once they've made their point, the thinking goes, Republicans and Democrats arguing over how to rein in out-of-control government spending would reach some kind of agreement, raise the federal debt ceiling, and allow the government to keep functioning normally. But businesses and investors are starting to worry. The government will max out its borrowing ability in early August, and will have to dramatically cut spending if it's not allowed to borrow more. Taxes and other revenue only cover about 60 percent of what the government spends. It borrows - by issuing Treasury securities - to finance the other 40 percent or so. Economists are now running the numbers and trying to predict what will happen if the debt impasse continues and Washington has to stop borrowing. This is not work for the squeamish.                                   
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          [See how Washington is killing jobs.]
There's a lot of talk about the government defaulting on its debt, but that's not likely to happen. The government collects about $ 200 billion per month in taxes and other revenue, and that cash would keep coming in. It borrows another $ 130 billion or so each month - the money it would have to live without. Interest payments on the nation's debt - which Washington must pay on time to avoid being in default - amount to about $ 30 billion per month. If forced to choose, the government would almost certainly prioritize debt payments above other obligations, because welching on bonds considered the world's safest would sink financial markets everywhere and make American the world's biggest deadbeat. And the Treasury Dept. would still have adequate cash flow to cover debt payments and remain in good standing with borrowers.
Almost everything else the government pays for, however, would be vulnerable to sudden cutbacks. Here's who would feel the pain most abruptly:
Social Security recipients. The government is due to deliver $ 23 billion in Social Security payments on August 3, according to forecasting firm IHS Global Insight. If the government is forced to cut 40 percent of its spending, these Social Security checks may not arrive. The suddenness with which the political battle in Washington will hit the wallets of ordinary Americans is one reason many analysts assume that a true impasse over the borrowing limit will be short-lived. But it could still be damaging. Social Security recipients who depend on their checks to pay other bills could end up running behind, incurring costly late fees or damaging their own credit. And it's no guarantee that if stopped, the government's check-writing machinery will start up again without delays or snafus that hold up checks even longer.
[See 5 upsides to the lousy job market.]
Government employees. Another likely outcome is the shutdown of government offices and the furlough of federal employees. Everyone loves to bash government bureaucrats, but they're a meaningful chunk of the US economy, amounting to 4.4 million workers, including the uniformed military. Many of them will stop getting paychecks, which at a minimum will slow spending and weaken the economy further. That would probably mean the closure of national parks, passport offices, veterans' facilities and many other government offices. Amtrak and the U.S. Postal Service could be affected. The government would probably fence off the military and certain vital services, but even soldiers could be affected if the debt battle drags on.
The unemployed. Washington currently offers extended unemployment benefits to nearly four million people who have exhausted state-level benefits, which last for 26 weeks in most states. Those checks could stop coming, too. One reason unemployment benefits are important is that recipients spend virtually all of the money, providing an immediate boost to the economy. A tighter crunch on the unemployed could also lead to more foreclosures and defaults on other types of consumer debt, since something will have to give if those checks stop arriving.
Investors. Nobody's sure exactly how a sharp cut in federal spending would affect stock and commodity markets - except it would be bad. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress recently that a borrowing moratorium would generate "shock waves through the entire financial system." The U.S. government is the world's biggest spender, and the flow of money from Washington impacts virtually every financial market in the world, through checks sent to thousands of vendors and contractors, the rates paid on Treasury securities, and decisions made by the Federal Reserve. It's almost impossible to predict the daisy chain of events that would unfold as global investors reacted to the sudden upending of the world's financial order.
[See 5 economic disasters that haven't happened.]
But a few general outcomes seem likely. First, a borrowing moratorium of more than a few days might be enough to tip the US and even the global economy into a recession, so banks, employers and foreign governments would suddenly adjust their own spending and prepare for tough times. "Risk" assets like stocks would plunge in value, with safer assets like gold soaring. Investors may flee dollar-denominated assets and search for other safe-haven currencies, though it's hard to tell which ones, since the euro and yen aren't exactly appealing. Some economists worry about a "TARP moment" similar to Sept. 29, 2008, when Congress first voted down the massive bank bailout bill - and the stock market fell about nine percent in a single session. Even if the debt ceiling were lifted after a few days of pandemonium, there could still be lasting damage. "There would be massive dislocation in financial markets, because the recipients of government spending that fail to get priority, and do not get paid, will be unable in turn to meet their own obligations," says economist Nigel Gault of IHS. "Confidence in the ability of the US government to fulfill its most basic responsibilities would be damaged."
Borrowers. Interest rates would go up, but not necessarily soar. U.S. Treasury securities are a baseline investment that anchor the value of many other types of loans, and a sudden risk of default by the Treasury would change that calculus completely. Rates on Treasuries would go higher, to compensate for the increased risk. Many other interest rates would rise in tandem. But other factors would probably keep rates from rising to usurious levels. The Fed would probably act to counter fears of a recession. A recession itself, if one occurred, would weaken demand for credit, which usually pushes rates down. And investors would bid on bonds while expecting an eventual solution from Washington, which means a rate hike could be temporary. Even that, however, could play havoc with global portfolios.
[See why you should worry about a "TARP moment."]
The government itself. Any moved that weakened the economy and threw more people out of work - or simply impeded hiring - would further reduce the government's tax revenues and make the US debt problem worse.
Art lovers, beachgoers, and public TV viewers. A long list of "discretionary" federal programs has been targeted for cuts or elimination, and those could end up getting whacked right away. These tend to be low-visibility programs that don't cost all that much - compared to huge budget items like Medicare or military spending - but fund nice-to-have things that many people would miss if they disappeared. Earlier this year, House Republicans outlined dozens of cuts they'd like to see in things like the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, beach replenishment, grants for intercity rail service, regional development agencies, and local transit.
If cut, those programs could see funding restored once the crisis passes. But if the big spending cuts happen, Americans will notice that a lot of things they don't necessarily associate with Washington are suddenly unavailable. The federal government is big, indeed. We may be about to find out just how big.

Final space shuttle flight crew arrives for launch

              Final space shuttle flight crew arrives for launch :CAPE CANAVERAL, Florida - Four veteran astronauts landed at the Kennedy Space Center in Florida on Monday to prepare for the launch of NASA's last space shuttle on a cargo run to the International Space Station.
Liftoff of Atlantis on the U.S. space agency's 135th and final shuttle flight is targeted for 11:26 am EDT on Friday.
"It's such a pleasure to come down here when you have a rocket on the pad and it's got your stuff loaded on it," astronaut Rex Walheim told reporters shortly after arriving at the Florida spaceport.
Walheim and his crew mates - commander Chris Ferguson, pilot Doug Hurley and astronaut Sandy Magnus - had just nine months to prepare for their mission, which was added to buy time in case the companies NASA has hired to fly supplies to the station after the shuttle program ends encounter delays.
Space Exploration Technologies, known as SpaceX and owned by Internet entrepreneur Elon Musk, and aerospace company Orbital Sciences Corp hope to start flying freighters to the station next year.
NASA astronauts plan to hitch rides to the space station on Russian Soyuz space capsules, at a cost of more than $ 50 million a seat, until US firms are ready to take on that business as well.
Atlantis carries a storage pod in its cargo bay filled with more than four tonnes of food, clothing, supplies and equipment for the space station, a $ 100 billion orbital complex the size of a five-bedroom house.
The station, which circles 220 miles above the Earth, is a partnership between the United States, Russia, Europe, Japan and Canada, built primarily by space shuttle crews over the past 11 years.
NASA points to the station as a fitting legacy to the shuttle program and wants to ensure it can remain continually staffed with a full crew of six.
So while trucking food and clothing is not the most glamorous job the shuttle has performed in its 30-year history, the program's final flight is critical for the station's long-term viability.
"When it's all over, we'll be very proud to put the right hand bookend on the space shuttle program," Ferguson said.

Gaddafi government says in talks, rebels say he must go

   Gaddafi government says in talks, rebels say he must go :TRIPOLI - The Libyan government said on Monday that it was in talks with opposition figures but there seemed little chance of a swift end to the civil war as both sides stuck to entrenched positions on the fate of Muammar Gaddafi.
The leader's son Saif al-Islam, in combative form, told a French newspaper there was no question of negotiating an end to his father's 42-year rule, while the rebels, stepping back from a hint of a concession, renewed their demand that he go now.
A spokesman for Gaddafi's administration said high-ranking government officials had been in foreign-mediated talks in Italy, Egypt and Norway with opposition figures to try to find a peace deal, and that talks were still going on.
Any talk of a possible accommodation with Gaddafi could drive a wedge into the ranks of the disparate rebel movement which sprang up in February in the wake of uprisings in neighboring Tunisia and Egypt. Many of Gaddafi's opponents are flatly opposed to any form of concession to the veteran leader.
The government spokesman named one of the opposition figures in the talks as Abdel Fattah Younes al-Abidi, Gaddafi's former security minister who defected in February. But it was not clear whether the talks took place with the knowledge or endorsement of the leadership of the rebel National Transitional Council.
The Council, which a growing number of countries say is the Libyan people's sole legitimate representatives, has said there are no talks between it and Gaddafi's administration.
"In the last few weeks and in several world capitals, high-ranking Libyan government officials have met with members of the Libyan opposition to negotiate peaceful ways out of the Libyan crisis," the government spokesman said in an e-mailed statement.
"Other direct negotiations still take place as of now."
DEFIANCE
Saif al-Islam Gaddafi, one of the most prominent of the leader's sons, dismissed suggestions that there could be a peace settlement that removed his father - a demand not only of the rebels but of the Western powers bombing Libya since March.
"My father is not part of the negotiations," Saif al-Islam told Le Monde newspaper. "You think one can find a solution that does not involve him? No, it's impossible."
By backing the rebels, NATO had picked the losing side, he added: "God is with us. We will fight and we will win.
"We have our army. We have more munitions, more weapons. Morale is high. The others are becoming weaker and weaker."
A glimmer of concession on Gaddafi's future from the National Transitional Council on Sunday was swiftly withdrawn on Monday when the NTC, based in the eastern city of Benghazi, contradicted remarks made by its leader Mustafa Abdel Jalil.
He told Reuters on Sunday: "As a peaceful solution, we offered that he can resign and order his soldiers to withdraw from their barracks and positions, and then he can decide either to stay in Libya or abroad.
"If he desires to stay in Libya, we will determine the place and it will be under international supervision. And there will be international supervision of all his movements."
However, on Monday issued a statement by Abdel Jalil saying:
"I would like to confirm that there is absolutely no current or future possibility for Gaddafi to remain in Libya ... There is no escape clause for Gaddafi - he must be removed from power and face justice."
NATO says its air strikes are steadily eroding Gaddafi's grip on power, but the fighting on the ground is making slow progress. The rag-tag force of rebel fighters is bogged down on three fronts and unable to break through to the capital.
In Misrata, a rebel-held city 200 km (130 miles) east of Tripoli, there was renewed fighting on the southern outskirts. Doctors told a Reuters journalist that two fighters had been killed, adding to two whom rebels said were killed on Sunday.
The closest rebel position to Tripoli is near the town of Bir al-Ghanam, about 80 km (50 miles) south of the capital. There, rebels say they are preparing an offensive, but there has been little movement for over a week.
"The situation there is relatively calm, the revolutionaries are preparing for the next days," a rebel spokesman called Mohammed told Reuters from the nearby town of Nalut.

Thailand and Mass Politics

      Thailand and Mass Politics:Thailand’s Puea Thai Party won a solid parliamentary majority in yesterday’s election, and Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva graciously conceded defeat. Thais are left to wonder whether the new government will grant former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra amnesty for corruption and allow him to return home, and whether the military will step in to prevent that from happening.

For now, however, one outcome of the election is clear enough. The changes in Thai society that made the rise of Mr. Thaksin possible and that he furthered in his five years in office until he was ousted by the military in 2006 are continuing.

The incumbent Democrat Party and the challenger Puea Thai fought this contest primarily on the basis of party platforms and the personal appeal of the candidates. That may sound unremarkable, but Thai politics used to be the province of bland characters who campaigned on their ability to bring benefits to their local constituencies.

Patronage and bribery of voters continue to play a role in Thai politics today. But it is striking that in recent weeks, both sides mobilized their supporters based on their vision for the nation as a whole. Pro-Thaksin Thai Puea set the agenda for rural development and globalization, and the Democrats were forced to follow.

Both sides pledged more aid for the poor, including measures that may be enough to call populist. Their proposals to increase minimum wages and more government support for farmers differ only in details. Many promises of public spending have raised concerns that the new government may collapse in Thailand’s public finances.

A more positive sign was the way in which both parties competed to show that they enhance the competitiveness of Thailand. Both offer much-needed investment in infrastructure and education.

It is noteworthy that during the election campaign, Democrats dropped a reference to “sufficiency economy”. In the 1970s, King Bhumibol Adulyadej coined the term to keep the debt caused by excessive and over-consumption in rural areas. Since then it has evolved into a nationalist, and sometimes the autarkic philosophy. After the 2006 coup, the military junta revived the idea and the Democrats continue on the words to her after Prime Minister Abhisit took office in late 2008.

Most Thais understand what the romanticism of the past. Mr Thaksin called on villagers to start a local industry and production of industrial goods. Increasing rural incomes, and many farmers went abroad and understand that great opportunities await, if the government removes obstacles to growth.

Puea Thai benefit from a proven track record, Mr. Thaksin’s development. As the campaign wore on and the Democratic Party lost ground, Mr. Abhisit began to emphasize the links of their opponents, to pro-Thaksin “red shirt” movement, which occupied the center of Bangkok, last year. The episode ended in violence, with government troops killed at least 91 protesters and burning red shirts of the building.

Thai society remains highly polarized and these events Thaksin period in which former prime minister is sometimes used his power to silence critics. But after his fall, the military government, and then the Democrats could not continue more and more popular and successful Thaksin’s policies. They also could not strengthen the weak institutions of government that allowed violations of Mr. Thaksin. Instead they gave the Thais an impression that they would like to turn the clock back to an era when elite shared power among themselves, with little regard for voters.

As this election showed, Thailand irrevocably reached the stage where it will be governed by the mass parties. Creating a system of checks and balances to control the political competition has become the most urgent task. Some analysts, such as Thitinan Pongsudhirak write in these pages last week, urged both parties to reach an informal agreement on the establishment of norms of behavior. This is necessary in the short term, but the next government will need to begin the process of revising the constitution to create a reliable and independent institution that oversees the political process. Without such reforms, political uncertainty will continue to hinder the development of Thailand.