A Night with Janis Joplin celebrates the inspirations of one of rock’s greatest legends and takes audiences on a musical journey with Joplin as her unforgettable voice made her a must-see headliner all across the country when she exploded onto the music scene in 1967. The show features many of Joplin’s hit songs, including “Me and Bobby McGee,” “Down on Me,” “Summertime,” “Piece of My Heart,” “Ball ‘n’ Chain,” “Maybe,” “Kozmic Blues,” “Cry Baby” and “Mercedes Benz.” View Comments Let down your hair and pull those bellbottoms out of the closet, because A Night with Janis Joplin is returning to the New York stage! After an acclaimed run at Broadway’s Lyceum Theatre, Mary Bridget Davies will reprise her performance as the queen of psychedelic soul at off-Broadway’s Gramercy Theatre. Written and directed by Randy Johnson, A Night with Janis Joplin opens April 10. No additional casting has been announced. Mary Bridget Davies A Night with Janis Joplin opened September 20, 2013 at Broadway’s Lyceum Theatre, where it played 22 previews and 140 regular performances before closing on February 9. Welcome back, Janis! Star Files
Marquise de Merteuil, Dangerous Liaisons Norma Desmond, Sunset Boulevard Albert Nobbs, Albert Nobbs Claire Wellington, The Stepford Wives Patty Hewes, Damages (Photo: Warner Bros, Disney & Sony) Sarah, Sarah Plain and Tall Gertrude, Hamlet View Comments Sarah Cooper, The Big Chill Cruella de Vil, 101 Dalmatians With three Tony Awards, three Emmy Awards, two Golden Globes and six Oscar nominations, Glenn Close is truly one of the greatest stars of the stage and screen. She has returned to Andrew Lloyd Webber’s Sunset Boulevard in her Tony-winning role as Norma Desmond; the revival officially opens on February 9 at the Palace Theatre. In honor of Close’s return to the Great White Way, we asked you which of her fabulous, fierce and sometimes even frightening roles are your faves. We’re obsessed with the number one pick, but we can think of exactly 101 dalmatians that may not be. Got the clue? Awesome. Take a look at your top 10 below! Alex Forrest, Fatal Attraction
The ‘War on Coal’ Concoction FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmailPrint分享Mark Hand for SNL:Accusing the Obama administration of waging a war on coal may serve as an effective rallying cry in coal-producing states, but the people making the claim either are intentionally misleading their constituents or lack a clear understanding of the history of the Clean Air Act, according to a pair of environmental law experts.Each of the three major “fronts” in President Barack Obama’s so-called war on coal — the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule, the Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the Clean Power Plan — can trace its lineage to previous presidential administrations, Republican and Democratic, and the dawn of modern environmental policy, Richard Revesz and Jack Lienke write in their new book, Struggling for Air: Power Plants and the “War on Coal,” published by Oxford University Press.“The basic narrative here is that President Obama took office in 2009 and pretty much immediately set about imposing all sorts of onerous and unprecedented restrictions on the use of coal. And this is very misleading,” Lienke, a senior attorney at the Institute for Public Integrity at the New York University School of Law, said April 5 at a book launch event hosted by Resources for the Future, a nonprofit research organization in Washington, D.C.Of these three major regulations that opponents have characterized as a war on coal, none was entirely pursued at the discretion of the Obama administration, Revesz and Lienke write in the book. CSAPR was a “necessary” replacement for the George W. Bush administration’s Clean Air Interstate Rule, which was struck down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and was left in place only to give the EPA time to develop a substitute, they explain.The MATS rule was crafted to replace a rule developed under the George W. Bush administration, the Clean Air Mercury Rule, that the D.C. Circuit had vacated. The Obama administration would have had difficulty not issuing its own mercury rule, given the EPA’s previous findings that power plants were the largest source of mercury pollution in the country and that such pollution was a threat to public health and the environment, they write.The EPA’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Power Plan was “similarly preordained” by the 2007 Supreme Court decision, Massachusetts v. EPA, which said the agency must consider greenhouse gas emission as pollutants, according to the attorneys. Once the EPA took steps to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks after the 2007 court decision, the agency did not have a persuasive defense against a lawsuit seeking to compel it to do the same for power plants, they argue.Observers should be able to recognize that these three rules “weren’t really the Obama administration’s idea, not entirely,” Lienke said in his comments at the Resources for the Future event. “It’s understandable that the Obama administration doesn’t really want to shout this part from the rooftops. If you’re thinking legacy, you want to say, ‘I did more to protect the environment than any president in history,’ not, ‘I took some incremental steps to further regulatory efforts that were set in motion by past presidents.’”Full article ($): Attorneys trace lineage of Obama’s ‘war on coal’ to earlier administrations
Sign up for our COVID-19 newsletter to stay up-to-date on the latest coronavirus news throughout New York Two post-Superstorm Sandy hazard mitigation projects on Long Island that would cost a combined $61 million are among 10 proposals statewide awaiting the federal government’s stamp of approval. The two proposals—$400 million in flood protection in Island Park and $21 million for Good Samaritan Hospital Medical Center and Our Lady of Consolation Nursing Home in West Islip—have been vetted by state officials and could be eligible for FEMA funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. The grant was created to assist local governments and non-profit organizations bolster their infrastructure so they can be better prepared for future natural disasters like Sandy. “This vital program enables communities to think creatively about preparing for future storms, bolstering infrastructure and helping to revive local economies in the process,” Gov. Andrew Cuomo said. Island Park, one of the villages hit hardest by Sandy’s storm surge, was flooded with up to eight feet of sea water when the Oct. 29, 2012 superstorm hit. The hurricane flooded nearly every home and business in the village and destroyed the elementary school, fire house, village hall and some religious institutions. Thirty-percent of residents have yet to return, according to the state. The village’s proposal calls for a field examination of drainage systems and existing municipal bulkheads. Officials are also seeking to improve mitigation by including tide gates, sub-surface storm water storage, bulkhead upgrades and road raising. In West Islip, Catholic Health Services of Long Island—which owns and operates the medical center and nursing home—is seeking federal aid to replace generators at both facilities and to elevate critical electrical systems. The organization also hopes to conduct a civil engineering study to propose flood control recommendations to protect the facilities against future storm surges. The state has vetted a total of 10 projects estimated at $128 million. They all require FEMA approval.
The goal of the profession and the Government is to activate and employ the domestic labor force. A more appropriate solution for employers in tourism is a domestic worker for whom there is no need for demanding administration, providing accommodation if it is someone from the local area, and which completes the authentic experience in Croatia for the end guest. “We certainly welcome measures such as dual education, the promotion of vocational occupations in tourism and a possible future reduction in the wage burden as well as tax relief in tourism that would ensure more competitive wages for those in the EU, but we need help now., “Said Žgomba and added that an urgent solution is needed by approving an additional quota of foreign workers for tourism because we are questioning the viability of the branch that carries over 20 percent of GDP. RESPONSE OF THE MINISTRY OF LABOR AND PENSION SYSTEM TO THE EMPLOYER’S APPEAL IN TOURISM: EMPLOYERS CONTACT CES RELATED NEWS: The appeal for the workers was joined by travel agencies, which emphasize if workers fail to reach an agreement with several employers, that they should be deleted from the CES records because they represent a brake on the employment of those who really want to work – UHPA and UPA HGK point them out. “We ask the CES to send those 4.000 unemployed, of which 1.600 on the coast, who are available for work in the season and have expressed a desire to work in the season, immediately and within three days to employers in tourism who lack labor, and if not manage to reach an agreement with several employers, please delete them from the CES records because they are a brake on the employment of those who really want to work”Said Boris Žgomba, president of the Association of Travel Agencies of the Croatian Chamber of Commerce. HUT AND HUP APPEAL: URGENTLY MAKE A DECISION TO INCREASE QUOTAS BECAUSE THERE ARE NO WORKERS AND THE SEASON IS IN DANGER UPA HGK and UHPA are leading professional associations in tourism that represent the interests of over 1800 registered companies for the activities of travel agencies and tour operators, employ over 6 thousand people and contribute to the realization of approximately 15 million overnight stays. Travel agencies also joined the appeal for workers, and due to the burning problem of labor shortage, Croatian tourism is threatened by the impossibility of opening part of the facilities, as well as the deterioration of the quality of service. “Tourism is still an industry of experiencing and transmitting local experience, and man is the key to success in tourism,Fain emphasizes. However, we have been facing for a long time that there are no such workers, and the structural solutions that are being implemented or announced are solutions that will give results in a longer period of time. WILL WE FINALLY INTRODUCE THE SLOVENIAN MODEL FOR IMPORTING FOREIGN WORKERS FROM NEXT YEAR? Insane technical problems with the registration of foreign workers The lack of quality and qualified workforce and the consequent decline in the quality of service in the hotel and catering industry will also be felt by travel agencies, whose quality of offer largely depends on that of other actors in tourism. They have the same attitude in the Association of Travel Agencies of the Croatian Chamber of Commerce (UPA of the Croatian Chamber of Commerce). Both professional associations welcome electronic applications, but administration remains a problem. The processing of applications for the employment of a foreign worker takes several weeks, which is too long, especially for facilities where the season lasts only 12 weeks. “Professional associations support the efforts of the Government and the Ministry of Labor and Pension System, as well as activities such as Tourism Job Day, providing retirees with part-time work and increasing quotas in 2019, but as these measures do not solve the problem because over 5 workers are missing“Points out Tomislav Fain, President of the Association of Croatian Travel Agencies (UHPA)
As a result, Spirit, which builds the fuselages for the MAX, will place workers at its Wichita factory working on the plane on a 21-day unpaid furlough starting on Monday. Local media said the move will affect 900 workers.Spirit said it was also undertaking an “immediate reduction” of the hourly workforces in Tulsa and McAlester, Oklahoma.The MAX has been grounded since March 2019 following two deadly crashes that resulted in 346 fatalities.Boeing had been targeting mid-2020 to win regulatory approval for the MAX, but has more recently said it expects commercial deliveries to resume during the third quarter.A Boeing spokesman declined to comment on the timing of a certification flight, a key step in Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) approval process.”We are continuing to work closely with the FAA and global regulators on the rigorous process to safely return the 737 MAX to service,” the Boeing spokesman said.Topics : Spirit AeroSystems, a major contractor on the 737 MAX, will furlough staff after being directed by Boeing to pause work on the embattled plane, Spirit announced late Wednesday.Boeing told Spirit to suspend additional work on four 737 MAX planes and to avoid starting production on 16 others scheduled to be delivered in 2020, Spirit said.Spirit is taking the actions “in order to support Boeing’s alignment of near-term delivery schedules to its customers’ needs in light of COVID-19’s impact on air travel and airline operations, and in order to mitigate the expenditure of potential unnecessary production costs,” Spirit said.
Gov. Wolf Renews COVID-19 Disaster Declaration for State Response and Recovery, Stay-at-Home Order Ends June 4 SHARE Email Facebook Twitter Press Release, Public Health Governor Tom Wolf today renewed the 90-day disaster declaration he originally signed on March 6 following the announcement of the first two presumptive positive cases of COVID-19 in the commonwealth. The declaration was set to expire on June 4.The emergency disaster declaration provides for increased support to state agencies involved in the continued response to the virus and recovery for the state during reopening.“Pennsylvanians have done a tremendous job flattening the curve and case numbers continue to decrease,” Gov. Wolf said. “Renewing the disaster declaration helps state agencies with resources and supports as we continue mitigation and recovery.”The Department of Health’s Department Operations Center at the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency is still active as is the CRCC there.Also today, Gov. Wolf announced that he would allow the amended stay-at-home order to expire at 11:59 p.m., June 4. The-stay at-home requirements were only in effect for counties in the red phase.“As phased reopening continues and all 67 counties are either in the yellow or green phase by Friday, we will no longer have a stay-at-home order in effect,” Gov. Wolf said. “I remind Pennsylvanians that yellow means caution and even in the green phase everyone needs to take precautions to keep themselves and their communities healthy.”Read the amendment to the emergency disaster declaration here.Ver esta página en español. June 03, 2020
IPE’s Martin Steward wonders whether a habit of thought is developing that fails to recognise ‘stranded’ portfolio carbon assets as a risk and starts to regard them as a certaintyThere was a lot of talk about ‘de-carbonising’ investment portfolios through programmes of divestment, off the back of the recent UN Climate Summit.Sweden’s AP4 announced that it was leading the Portfolio Decarbonisation Coalition (PDC), with the aim of shrinking the carbon footprint of $100bn (€78bn) of institutional investment worldwide. PFZW committed to reducing the carbon footprint of its entire portfolio by 50%, based on data from Sustainalytics, MSCI, South Pole and Trucost. A growing number of investors, including CalPERS, the London Pensions Fund Authority (LPFA), VicSuper and ERAFP are taking steps to measure the carbon footprint of their investments. MSCI recently added Global Fossil Fuels Exclusion indices to its existing roster of low-carbon benchmarks.Are they doing this because it is the right thing to do? No: they are doing it, the argument goes, because it represents the prudent risk management that any financial fiduciary should practice. The logic tends to be expressed as follows. Carbon emissions, largely as a result of the use of fossil fuels, are behind the dangerous rising temperatures in the global climate. It is simply not possible for carbon to be emitted at the current rate and for life to persist as it is. Notwithstanding current debates, that means there is no option but to cut carbon emissions – either via regulation and legislation to make emissions prohibitively expensive, or simply by a free market re-pricing to reflect the true cost of those emissions. It is imperative investors start to think about the risk of that re-pricing to the inherent value of the companies whose stock they hold in their portfolios. I think this logic is unimpeachable. But I worry that a habit of thought is developing that fails to recognise this as a risk and starts to regard it as a certainty. Listen to the debate, and it often seems there are certain sectors, businesses and manufacturing processes for which emitting a lot of carbon is essential.But that simply isn’t the case. Certain enterprises require a lot of energy, and, given our current energy mix, that does mean a lot of emissions and a big carbon footprint. But change the energy mix, and those businesses can continue, as they were, unabated. Losing exposure to them represents a potentially huge downside risk should their energy mix change.That’s the point, argues the fossil fuel-divestment lobby. Vote with your investment euros today, and you incentivise that change in energy mix tomorrow, and contribute to making the companies in question more sustainable.But that doesn’t make any sense in risk-management terms. Removing your money protects you from the risk that the company doesn’t change and goes out of business. But it leaves you exposed to the risk that the company does change – because when that change happens, it will be priced-in by the discounting mechanism that is the market, and you will be left on the outside looking in. You’ve just replaced one risk with another, so you need to have a clear idea of which risk you believe is the greater, in terms of both probability and impact on your portfolio.But even then we would be assuming the energy mix has to change. This is the thinking behind the idea that fossil-fuel extraction companies are massive owners of ‘stranded assets’ – oil and coal deposits that will stay underground because it is simply not feasible to burn them for energy above ground. But there are potentially lots of ways material can be utilised above ground without burning it and emitting carbon.Even before we start to speculate about technologies that could enable us to generate energy from fossil fuel without emitting carbon into the atmosphere, there are a whole range of industrial uses – in chemicals, plastics and fertilisers – that do not emit carbon. The term ‘fossil fuels’ obscures this non-energy and power aspect of what oil and gas companies pull out of the earth.Admittedly, the market does not currently appear to be pricing these eventualities into oil and gas stocks. Today’s prices have more to do with damaging subsidies we could all do without. But the risk-management question is, ‘How will I know when present values have stopped pricing-in these unsustainable cash flows and started pricing-in sustainable cash flows?’ Until you know the answer, you cannot manage the ‘stranded asset’ risk – a risk, not a certainty – by divesting.I’m no expert in any of this. You’d need, say, a professor of energy engineering for that. Enter Paul Younger, who occupies the Rankine chair of engineering at Glasgow University. He recently made it known that he was “utterly dismayed by, and vehemently opposed to, the decision of our University Court to divest from fossil fuels”, which he called “collective intellectual dishonesty” because it ignored the submission of the School of Engineering (adopted as the position of the entire College of Science and Engineering) on this investment question.The School of Engineering observed that there are no viable alternatives to fossil fuels yet available at scale, and that divestment would make it difficult for the academic sector to engage with the industry to achieve that objective. Such engagement is essential, it said, because the skills and facilities of the fossil fuels industry are indispensable to the development of carbon capture and storage, which the IPCC has cited as a necessity for the attainment of decarbonisation targets. And in any case, it added, fossil fuels are essential in food production, pharmaceuticals, chemicals and plastics that do not emit carbon.For good measure, Younger decried the “dishonesty” and “gesture politics” that saw the university divest from fossil fuel companies at the same time as it is planning a new gas-fired combined heat and power system.Many pension funds do recognise these risks behind the ‘de-carbonising’ rhetoric. APG, for example, has chosen to double its investments in sustainable energy over the next three years rather than divest from fossil fuel industries. A spokesperson starkly dismissed the ‘stranded assets’ argument with the simple observation that “oil and coal will still be needed for a long time”.But this approach makes sense in a lot of other ways, too. While the clean-energy play might expose APG to the risk of fossil fuel energy production becoming much cleaner, the fund mitigates that risk by staying exposed to fossil fuel companies while also investing in technology that would be valuable in its own right, and not just as an alternative to fossil fuels.The last time I checked, this sort of thing – ‘diversification’ – was the essence of portfolio risk management. The avoidance of hypocrisy is merely an added bonus.
The CHF33.1bn (€27bn) Swiss first pillar fund AHV has returned 7.1% for 2014, but admitted that its 2015 year-to-date performance was dampened by recent Swiss National Bank (SNB) actions. According to a presentation held in Zurich today, the selective currency hedging strategy as part of a currency overlay in place since 2002 has saved the AHV and its subfunds for invalidity as well as military service compensation from losing 3.54% of its assets in January – after the SNB cut the peg to the euro, wiping an estimated CHF30bn off pension savings. On the other hand, the unhedged part of the portfolio suffered a 1.5% drop in return in January bringing the overall performance for the month down to -0.5%.Marco Netzer, president of the AHV noted the fund’s hedging strategy helped “contain losses despite the large share of foreign investments in our broadly diversified investment portfolio”. If unhedged, the AHV would see 27% of its currency risk stem from investments in US dollars, 12% from euro holdings, 3% from British pound and another 12% from other currencies.After hedging into Swiss francs, its currency exposure fell to to 6% for dollars, euro and other currencies, respectively, and stood at 1% for the British pound.However, the AHV, which is also known as Compenswiss, pointed out the “future challenges are less linked to the currency market than to the impact of negative interest rates on institutional asset management in Switzerland and other countries”.While the AHV is exempt from the negative interest collected by the SNB on accounts banks, it can still be affected by negative rates introduced by custodians such State Street or BNY Mellon due to its euro-denominated deposits.But in its presentation the first pillar fund pointed out currently 75% of its assets were managed in Switzerland or by Swiss-based asset managers.Given the nature of the fund’s cashflow it has a high share of cash – which is not included in the return calculations – of monthly income and outflows of CHF4.5bn amounting to 15% of total assets.Read how FX hedging impacted performance at other Swiss funds
Further alternatives strategies and basic assumptions were also updated from the BVG 2005 index group.Based on these older indices, Swiss Pensionskassen portfolios would have returned between 1.2% and 0.6% last year.Irrespective of which index a pension fund benchmarked its asset allocation against, returns are most likely to be below 1% for 2015.In mid-December 2015, the consultancies Aon Hewitt and Libera AG issued an updated version of technical parameters to be applied by Pensionskassen when calculating longevity risks.The calculations for the update to the 2010 parameters were based on data provided by 15 large independent Pensionskassen.They showed that life expectancy for 65-year-old men had increased by 0.8 years since 2010 to just under 20 years, and by 0.5 years for women of the same age to almost 22 years.The consultancies have also updated the assumptions for Pensionskassen applying generation tables to calculate longevity risks.The latter predict an even higher increase in longevity, especially for generations already in retirement or shortly before retirement – particularly for men. Swiss pension fund portfolios using Pictet’s BVG 2015 benchmark index returned between 0.11% and 0.48% over the course of 2015, according to the Swiss bank’s estimates.The higher returns were achieved by the portfolios with a lower equity exposure of 25%, while those with a high allocation of 60% fared worse.In 2015, Pictet – which has been calculating benchmark indices for Swiss Pensionskassen since the implementation of the mandatory system in 1985 – updated its index family for the second-pillar BVG, named after the law governing it.The new index group for equity exposures of 25%, 40% and 60% introduced a more differentiated view on fixed income portfolios, including, for example, emerging market debt as a separate sub-asset class.