Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 03/09/2014
DEAR FRIEND.....
Bill Nye
I urge everyone two take two minutes to watch this video of Bill Nye (who recently teamed up with Bill and Melinda Gates), taking a whack at dispelling the myths surrounding child mortality and foreign aid by taking a cursory look at data you can see how and why kids are dying and how to reduce and prevent it. The average American perceives that the US spends a lot (25%) on foreign aid when the truth is that it only spend .8% (less than a penny out of each dollar) of its budget and much of this is either debt relief or military support. The idea that wars, tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters kill most of the people is wrong as these numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of people who are killed by preventable diseases.
Bill Nye Gets A Bit Somber But Knocks Out Some World Poverty Myths In 2 Minutes - Web Link: http://youtu.be/UL4zoo8xije
For example only 6% of kids five years old or younger die each year from accidents/injuries, whereas of kids five years old or younger die every year from non-communicable diseases (cancer or things you inherit), while the remaining 83% die each year from communicable preventable diseases. And if
we address this we can change the world. One of the biggest myths is that many people believe that we have been giving money to Africa and nothing has improved and things are as bad as they ever were. That's a myth, as data shows that child mortality has been cut in half in recent years. Therefore we have a real opportunity to dispel these myths and leave the world better than we found it, improving the quality of life for people everywhere by aggressively addressing preventable diseases.
William Sanford "Bill" Nye (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, writer, and scientist who began his career as a mechanical engineer at Boeing. He is best known as the host of the Disney/PBS children's science show Bill Nye the Science Guy (1993-98) and for his many subsequent appearances in popular media as a science educator. For more information please feel free to link on http://www.upworthy.com/a11-7-billion to read a special Upworthy series about global health and poverty sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Inescapable truths
THE National Academies of Science (NAS) and the Royal Society — the elite scientific fellowships of America and Britain, respectively, respectively — released today a rather handy "Frequently Asked Questions" resource on climate change. We know the media doesn't like to talk about climate change much, but this latest case of global warming denial has taken things to a new level. CNBC's Joe Kernen said last Thursday morning that climate change and higher temperatures in January were likely not a result of increased CO2, but rather of something more inexplicable. "It's almost like witchcraft," Kernen said. "In the middle ages it was witchcraft. You would have attributed adverse weather events to witchcraft."
Despite data that shows climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans have caused at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s," Kemen continued to deny such a cause-and-effect relationship. Kemen defended a recent claim that "the earth's geologic historyfundamentally contradicts CO2 climatefears," using the argument that there were warmer temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 levels were significantly higher than today. "The climate is so difficult to figure out," he said. Kernen has criticized climate science publicly before, and also used the word "witch" on Twitter in September when referring to the work of climate scientists: @gregladen yeeks, rough weekfor the alarmists. At least no recordfor hurricanes. Whew! More Republican dispatches from "the bubble." And when are these deniers going to learn the difference between Weather and Climate Change?
Global Warming Basics from the U.S. and British Science Academies
| Year | Annual Average (°C) | 10-year Average (°C) | 30-year Average (°C) | 60-year Average (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1850 | -0.25 | -0.3 | ||
| 1860 | -0.2 | -0.3 | ||
| 1870 | -0.2 | -0.25 | -0.3 | |
| 1880 | -0.15 | -0.2 | -0.25 | |
| 1890 | -0.1 | 0 | -0.2 | -0.2 |
| 1900 | 0 | 0 | -0.15 | -0.15 |
| 1910 | 0.1 | 0.1 | -0.1 | -0.1 |
| 1920 | 0 | 0.15 | -0.05 | -0.05 |
| 1930 | 0.15 | 0.25 | 0.05 | 0 |
| 1940 | 0.25 | 0.3 | 0.15 | 0.05 |
| 1950 | 0.2 | 0.35 | 0.25 | 0.15 |
| 1960 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.3 | 0.25 |
| 1970 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 0.35 | 0.3 |
| 1980 | 0.15 | 0.35 | 0.4 | 0.35 |
| 1990 | 0.25 | 0.5 | 0.45 | 0.4 |
| 2000 | 0.45 | 0.7 | 0.5 | 0.45 |
| 2010 | 0.6 |
The National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, The Royal Society, have published "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes,"a fresh primer on greenhouse-driven global warming that is a useful update on past reports from both organizations. You can find helpful summaries of the findings on the National Academy of Sciences website.
Web Link: http://dels.nas.edu/resources/static-assets/exec-office-other/climate-change-full.pdf
There's also streaming (and ultimately archived) video of some academy scientists discussing the report and a panel discussion run by the talented and relentlessly determined Miles O'Brien, the longtime television science reporter who recently wrote a wrenching and inspiring piece on an accident that resulted in the amputation of his left arm earlier this month. Also, please feel free to read the attached article Human Activities Are Changing the Climate -- by The National Academies.
The image shows a split screen. On the left, a black and white image of Ronald Reagan is displayed. On the right, Jon Stewart is shown sitting at a desk, looking at the camera. The background appears to be a news studio set.
Last week I was in my doctor's waiting room watching Fox News with interest (because I don't watch it at home) and was amazed of its Conservative pundits accusing President Obama of being weak on defense and out to destroy the country's prestige because Secretary Defense Chuck Hagel cutting the military budget, closing bases, getting rid of unwanted military hardware and reshaping forces to meet the new challenges currently facing the country and into the future. What seemed logical to me, since we are more likely to be attached by a terrorist cell trying to pollute our water supply, bomb Times Square or ram another American destroyer stationed off the coast of a country in the Middle East then a land attack by Russian tanks, jet fighter dogfight with Iranian air force or a nuclear missile from North Korea or China. So then why are some much of our military arsenal deployed to contain these potential scenarios?
But what really amused and amazed me was how these same pundits keep insisting that not only cutting the military budget is a sign of President Obama's projecting weakness, they openly lament that he would learn from their favorite President Ronald Reagan who showed strength to the world through his military policies, 'he broke down the wall and ended the Cold War" as one pundit said, "which made us safer and the undisputed leader of the Free World." All of this sounds good, if you ignore history, which many Republicans and Conservatives do. Television satirist and comedian Jon Steward must have seen the same Fox diatribe of how President Reagan's role in helping stabilizing Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the '8os, and how President Obama should be ashamed that he isn't Reagan because later the same day he did a segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show,"Jon Stewart reminded us that the truth is nowhere close to what they said.
Jon Stewart Rentituts• Fox That Reagan Created An International Mess
Web Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/jon-stewart-reagan-obama_n_4858723.html
Steward reminded us of the residual consequences of some of President Reagan's policies. For instance, Reagan aided some Afghan militants in their battle with the Soviets, and those militants eventually turned into the Taliban. "But we didn't have to fight those guys for 12more years, and Reagan was simply gone by then." These pundits that under the Reagan Administration, Oliver North illegally sold weapons to Iran and then illegally took that money and illegally gave to Nicaraguan death squads. Another thing they gloss over — when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan a group of Afghan rebels declared a "holy war." They were known as the Mujanideen and both the Carter and Reagan Administration gave the Mujanideen $3 billion aid to fight the Soviets. Republicans conveniently forget that it was President Reagan who pulled our US Marines out of Lebanon after the bombing of their barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen on October 23, 1983. And although President Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon, yet on April 21, the ready reaction force in Beirut was deactivated and its men were reassigned to their respective ships with the last Marines from the 24th MAU, the U.S./U.K. Embassy guard detail, being withdrawn from Beirut by late July 1984. And no Republicans called it "cut and run."
As the world watches a bloody revolution in Ukraine unfold, many pundits (mostly those found on Fox News) have been unable to help themselves from pointing out President Ronald Reagan's role in helping stabilize that region in the '8os, and how President Obama should be ashamed that he isn't Reagan. Or something. Other Republicans and Conservative media view the bloodbath currently going on in Syria as some sort of missed opportunity to do regime change, even though none of them can identify a creditable successor to Bashar al-Assad with a strong enough following to subdue the current factions who see themselves as the rightful leaders, including factions who are so extreme that even al Qaeda and Hezbollah have disowned them. There is still a chance that Ukraine can return to civility, while the universal belief in the Middle East is that Syria is going to be a quagmire of warring hostilities for the next foreseeable future, unless the neighboring countries come together to stop the chaos and bloodshed. And no matter what Putin, Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and other Western leaders want or try to do, it will take the Syrian people themselves to say enough is enough to stop the killing.
The paradigm for leadership have shifted. It is almost impossible to lead from the top down. The days of leaders dictating to the people are over. Consensus trumps power. Gunboat diplomacy is as outdated as empires and the Cold War. Still, many conservatives are insisting that we fight the same fight even when the opposition is totally different. Our biggest threat today is terrorism, not wars with Russia, North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If China really wanted to hurt us, all that they have to do is stop buying our T-Bills. And if they really wanted to screw us, dispose the $3 trillion of US debt in a fire-sale. But then they would be destroying the buying power of their biggest buyer, seriously hurting their own economy. One of my father's favorite sayings was that "history is re-written by the winners." And no better example of this is, the Reagan mythology.
Ronald Reagan was a President who raised taxes, doubled the national debt, cut deals with Democrats, made nicey-nice with Gorbachev, took afternoon naps, let his wife (who often consulted a physic) fire "his"senior staff, cut and ran in Lebanon, and made claims like Chris Cristie in the current "bridge-gate"scandal, that he knew nothing about the illegal Iran-Contra shenanigans. I have met President Reagan several times, and found him truly an affable and charming person. And in spite of what his family members claim, I am sure that he was suffering from the effects of early dementia during the last years of his Presidency. History has truly been kind to him. And I don't want to criticize or dis his reputation, but Republicans have to stop claiming that what they are doing today is something that Reagan would do, when the truth is that he wouldn't and didn't. Please check out the full clip above.
The image shows two men: Bill Kristol on the left and Bill Maher on the right. They appear to be on a television show. The text discusses a debate on "Real Time with Bill Maher" regarding the Tea Party, bailouts, and socialism, with Bill Kristol and Bill Maher as participants.
One of my favorite shows on television is HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher whose guest this week was Conservative columnist Bill Kristol, Margret Hoover, Austan Goolsbee, Bruce Dem and Christopher Leonard. And one of the things that they discussed was the Tea Party which celebrated its fifth anniversary this weekend. Bill started out the conversation by noting that their big issues were bailouts and too much socialism and that Fannie Mae paid back 109% of the money that they borrowed from the government, MG paid back 115%, the bank industry paid back 103% with the auto industry's paybacks lagging at 83%, hence essentially the government and taxpayers got all of their money back, while saving these industries and preventing much more harm to the economy and the country. When Maher suggested that this type of socialism work and asked what would it have been like had they not happened, Kristol's immediate response was "no", retorting that most of the bailouts happened under President Bush. Kristol continued on to say that the Tea Party was right to condemn these bail outs and other policies, as they were a very bad precedent. Kristol then continued to say that the origin of the Tea Party was not about bailouts and that it was about a mortgage bill and then it was about Obamacare and then the stimulus.
At this point Maher interrupted }Cristo] and said the "big ugly,"that it was about a Black President to which Kristol vehemently denied, claiming that the accusation is "total bullshit." Maher responded that a month after Obama took office suddenly white people were worried about debt, even though President Bush had allow the nation's debt to mushroom during his two terms, with none of the intense rancor. Kristol response that there was Conservative upset against Bush, but I don't remember any of the intensity to the degree that was lodged against President Obama, even though it was the Bush/Cheney's economic policies that created the conditions for the worst recession since the Great Depression. By this time, Kristol's denials were so ridiculous that Margret Hoover stepped in acknowledging that although debt concerns started out under President Bush and not Obama, and that the Tea Part started out as a purely fiscal disciplinary mass movement to rein in Federal Spending, which she noted "was a good thing" but it got off the rails after 2010, when it was coopted by Michele Bachmann and other birthers in Congress. But this is not truly accurate.
I am sure that Ms. Hoover is a nice person who truly believes that the Tea Party Movement's origin was not in response to racism, but it was.... It seeds began with the Reverend Wright assaults and continued through Donald Trump demands that Presidential candidate Barrack Obama show his long-form birth certificate (which I am not sure I could get even if offered me a million dollars) and then the continued vicious and racist attacks, not to mention that he was somehow a Manchurian Candidate Socialist Community Organizer who was going to turn the country into an Islamic state with Sharia Laws. Kristol, Hoover and other Republicans have re-created a fictional history that is totally bullshit. Joe The Plummer and other Tea Baggers had no interest in the country's deficit until it became a rallying cry against a Black President who somehow stole the election and the Presidency. And from day-one they have tried everything they can to delegitimize his accomplishments and Presidency. Not once over the past five years have I heard leaders of the Tea Party acknowledge that Obama Administration's policies, turned around the economic fortunes of the country, navigated us out of two wars, kept the country safe and made things better for the country than the day that they took office. The truth is that The Tea Party started out as a racist movement disguising itself as something else, when in reality it is nothing more than a bunch of white people with two or three "Uncle Toms" unable to come to terms that the President of the United States is a cool educated Black Man with a beautiful educated wife and an awesome family, who is far more successful than his predecessor.
Just why is American politics so dysfunctional? One answer is that both parties, for different reasons, have created self-serving mythologies that reward them for not dealing with pressing problems that, though daunting, are hardly sudden or secret. First, immigration. By 2050, immigrants and their U.S.-born children are projected to represent 37 percent of the population, slightly higher than in 1900, when the country last experienced mass immigration. Between now and mid-century, immigrants and their children will generate two-thirds of population growth. The question is whether newcomers are constructively assimilated or whether — or characterization of popular fears — they "take our jobs, drain our resources, threaten our language ... and import crime." Either way, America's profile changes. In 1960, 85 percent of Americans were white and 10 percent were black. Now, 63 percent are white, 13 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic and 5 percent Asian. In 2050, those shares are projected to be 47 percent white, 13 percent black, 28 percent Hispanic and 8 percent Asian.
Second, family breakdown. In 2011,unmarried women accounted for 41 percent of U.S. births, up from 5 percent in 1960. The trend affects all major groups. The rate is 29 percent for whites, 53 percent among Hispanics and 72 percent among African Americans. Although 6o percent of single mothers have live-in boyfriends, half of these relationships end within five years. Single parenthood's stigma is gone. This may shape the future middle class because growing up in a single-parent home puts children at a disadvantage. Social-science research show that children in two-parent homes — despite millions of exceptions — are "healthier, do better academically, and get into less trouble as adolescents."
Finally, aging. Every day 10,000 baby boomers turn 65. The retiree flood is swamping the federal budget. By 2022, Social Security, Medicare and the non-child share of Medicaid will exceed half the budget, up from 3o percent in 1990, projects an Urban Institute study. To make room for the elderly, defense and many domestic programs are being relentlessly squeezed. There's no generational justice, argues Taylor: "The young today are paying taxes to support a level of benefitsfor the old that they themselves have no prospect of receiving when they become old."
America's future rests heavily on how these mega-trends play out. Democracy works best when the political system can mediate between the often-inconsistent demands of public opinion and larger national needs. This, America's leaders can't or won't do. Faced with immutable trends, they have not adapted to change. Instead, they pander to partisans with soothing, though outdated, stereotypes. Nostalgia poses as policy when it is actually a marketing strategy.
Conservatives say that Liberals won't come to terms with aging. Believing that spending on the elderly and near-elderly constitutes the essence of progressivism — and ignoring the affluence of many elderly — some liberals even support raising these benefits. And that the pro-government party has become an instrument of anti-government policies, because accommodating all the elderly's benefits means quietly condoning deep cuts in most other programs. Conservatives say that this brand of liberalism discriminates against the young with their economic problems stemming heavily from the Great Recession (in 2012, 4o percent of men ages 18 to 31 lived with their parents). But shrinking government services and looming tax increases compound the damage. While Conservative pundits admit that Conservatives have parallel hang-ups. They can't adapt to the permanence of Big Government or the presence of so many immigrants, including an estimated 11 million who are here illegally. Even if unworthy government programs are cut, federal spending will easily exceed one-fifth of national income, which is more than today's taxes will cover. Higher taxes, contrary to GOP dogma, will be needed and illegal immigrants won't conveniently vanish and unless we convene death panels younger generations will have to take care of their elders like they do elsewhere in the world.
[Content continues with further analysis, statistics, and commentary on economic inequality, poverty, U.S. budget, and global events.]
Sincerely,
Greg Brown
Gregory. Brown
Chairman & CEO
GlobalCast Partners, LLC