EFTA01195832.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bee: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 04/06/2014 Date: Sun, 06 Apr 2014 08:45:41 +0000 Attachments: Tax- Hating_States_Totally_Fine_With_Taxing_The_Poor_Ben_Hallman_Huff_Post_March_2 I, 2014.docx; Pollution Killed_7 Million_People Worldwide_in_2012_ANDREWJACOBS_and_IANJ OHNSOci NYTVTarch 2 014.aocx; Why_Amacans like_Otamacareiand why_they_don't)_-- _in two charts gullivan_Mar_27,201Zdocx; Heart_Attacks_and_Water_- Airill,_20147docx; D.S. stock markets artriggedjays author Michael_Lewis John_McCrank_Reuters_Ma rch_51,_2014.docxrGene Feist_obit IslYTfiarch_22,2014.aocx; Supreme Coures McCuteheon Deciiion_is_a_Blow_Against_Average_Voters_Brennan_Ce nter For —Justice —April 2,2015.docx; Mceutcceon_v.jeder&Election Comissiom_April_2,_2014.pdf; Zucchero Fornaciari bio - March 6 2014.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png; image(12).png; image(13).png DEAR FRIEND The Unknown Known Donald Rumsfeld gets the Fog of War treatment EFTA01195832 A week ago Thursday, Chris Mathews spoke with Academy Award-winning documentary filmmaker Errol Morris to talk about his new film, "The Unknown Known," based on 33 hours of interviews with former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and an unrepentant key architect of the Iraq War. The title refers to an infamous press briefing in 2002 when Rumsfeld faced questions from reporters about the lack of evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "The Unknown Known" is Morris' loth documentary feature. He won a Best Documentary Oscar for his film 'The Fog of War: Eleven Lessonsfrom the Life ofRobert S. McNamara." His other films include "Standard Operating Procedure," about alleged U.S. torture of terror suspects in Abu Ghraib prison, and "The Thin Blue Line," about the wrongful conviction of Randall Adams for the murder of a Dallas policeman. The release of 'The Unknown Known" comes in a month marking 11 years since the U.S. invaded Iraq, leaving an estimated half a million Iraqis dead, along with at least 4,400 American troops, tens of thousands civilians maimed, disabled and will continue to suffer from trauma, with one Harvard University study saying that the wars of choice in Afghanistan and Iraq will eventually cost American taxpayers as much as $6 trillion. We all know that the various officials of the Bush administration, George W. Bush himself, will never be held accountable for most, if not all, of the things that happened under their watch. They can now sit back and crow about one thing or another and indulge in one form of partisan politics after another. Maybe that's the most disturbing thing about this story. If they took us to war for no good reason, shouldn't they be in some way held accountable for that fact? Isn't that important to our democracy that we just don't simply sweep the past under the rug that we deal with it in some fashion? And what most shocked Morris in his 33 hours of conversation with Donald Rumsfeld — "So many things. Thefact that he unendingly says things which are not true, about—he unendingly says things that arefalse. Does he even realize it.... Lying...." Rumsfeld's response is, "stuff happens and people are allowed to make mistakes and things that you think you know you don't and they are the unknowns." We have to ask ourselves how we got into another disastrous war of choice after Viet Nam. But somehow we were talked into wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq, which Rumsfeld described in the documentary as a measured nuanced approach. We can only imagine what the opposite is.... Dropping a nuke... maybe As conservative neocons/hawks always demand that all options should be left on the table... There was and is an odd disconnection between the policies pursued by Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush between what happened and their complicity and their complete certainty that they did nothing wrong. In regard to no WMDs found in Iraq — Rumsfeld in a Pentagon Press Briefing on February 12, 2002 , "reports that say that something hasn't happened are always interesting to me because as we know there are known, knowns. There are things that we know we know. And we also know that there are known unknowns, that is to say that we know things we do not know, but there are also unknowns, unknowns the ones we know we don't know. And if one looks throughout history of our country and otherfree countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones. So people who have the omissance that they can say with high certainty that something has not happened or is not being tried have capabilities that are.... They can do things that I can't do." With the press smiling along And this is a man who said last week in an appearance on Fox News, that a "trained ape could do a better job that President Obama is doing today in Afghanistan. Rumsfeld, "our relationship with Afghanistan and Karzai was absolutelyfirst rate in the Bush Administration. It has gone downhill like a toboggan ever since the Obama Administration came in...." So I was truly interested watching Chris Mathew's interview with Errol Morris, which inspired Mathews to finish the show in a summary that he calls, The Last Word that I would like to share with you. The Last Word EFTA01195833 Let mefinish with this horrid war in Iraq. You keep hoping, don't we that the people who do big things that we think were wrong will one day admit it. They will have one of those moments like in an old Perry Mason show where they just can't take it any longer and burst out with the truth once andfor all and all to hear. I guess lawyers will tell you that it doesn't happen like that. Because people who do things, do them with such perverse pride of authorship that they take them to the grave. They know what they did. They are happy with what they did but they don't want us to have the satisfaction of hearing them admit it or at least not the way we want to hear it and that absence of evidence is evidence. I have yet to hear a crystal clear statement of why we went to war in Iraq. I know some of the arguments. The one about W wanting to outdo hisfather or to get revengefor Saddam Hussein's attempt to kill hisfather. I know the geopolitical argument that taking down the Iraqi would weaken the rejectionists' states against a peace deal in the Middle East. The old argument that the road to Jerusalem went through Baghdad. I know the oil argument. And I know Dick Cheney and his life time practice of not taking hisfoot off the neck of any opponent he could get the chance. But Donald Rumsfeld, the Pentagon's chief whofought the war, please Don tell us what it was all about, please Don just spilled the beans. I watched this long documentary on Rumsfeld and who strikes me in the way he always hasfey- whimsical, eccentric I suppose but nothing, nothing about the real reasonsfor that war. Nothing about nuclear weapons, the ones that Saddam never had. Nothing about the threat to the United States because there never was a threat. Nothing about why 186,000 people should die. What a moral disaster, the whole murky stupid W war that no one will tell us had to be, or even why. Chris Matthews - March 27. 2014 Shouldn't these people be held accountable 2 ****** Bill Maher To Democrats: Stand Your Ground, Stop Being Wimps And Embrace Jimmy Carter "[President Jimmy] Carter is a perfect example of Republicans castigating Democrat success and Democrats not defending their own achievements. Republicans castigated Jimmy Caner's Administration as a "failed Presidency" Failed by whose standards? We may not had a great economy in the late 1970s but something else we didn't have.... a war President Carter was branded a wimp, but the real wimps are the Democrats who never had his backfor the achievement of neverfiring a shot while in office. And the courage of being the last President to ask Americans to sacrifice. And yet when President Obama talksfondly about the President of his EFTA01195834 youth he cites Reagan as an inspiration. But Obama is supposed to be an environmentalist. He should be inspired by the President who put solar panels on the roof of the White House. Not the President who came after him and tore them down because the sun was interfering with Nancy's astrology" Web Link: http://youtu.be/PMd9BsQS7tg As you will see in the above YouTube web-link and transcript, Bill Maher closed a week ago Friday's episode of "Real Time" by giving Democrats a rhetorical kick in the ass. With the midterms coming up later this year, Maher insisted that Dems need to let the American people know what they actually stand for and to start honoring their achievements — particularly with Obamacare — rather than cowering and apologizing. He also excoriated them for accepting the Republican narrative about former President Jimmy Carter: "Carter was branded a wimp, but the real wimps are the Democrats who never had his backfor the achievement of neverfiring a shot while in office and the courage of being the last president to ask Americans to sacrifice." And whether you agree or not, what Bill Maher said is true. Not telling voters what they want to hear instead of what they need to hear is the kind or political suicide that takes real courage. And to have the wisdom to "not employ gunboat diplomacy" as a way to bully other countries, enabled President Carter to orchestrate a lasting peace between Israel and Egypt. To not bully a weaker country isn't being a wimp. Just like not escalating a new Cold War with Russia over Ukraine isn't wise. Jimmy Carter showed both courage and wisdom as President and since leaving the office, through his humanitarian efforts around the world, he has set the Platinum standard for any ex-President to follow. As such, it is about time that every American acknowledge that not only was Jimmy Carter a good President, he is a great example for every leader in or out of office around the world to follow. What You Need to Know About Dark Money There is an ugly thing happening today called DARK MONEY. If you look up "Dark Money" in Merriam-Webster, you won't find a definition, but as of this week, their online unabridged dictionary includes a word that tells a big part of its story — "super PAC." It's defined in part as "an independent PAC[political action committee] that can accept unlimited contributionsfrom individuals and organizations (such as corporations and labor unions) and spend unlimited amounts in support of a candidate." It's a fitting reminder that four years after Citizens United, the Supreme Court decision that opened the floodgates of campaign cash, dark money may be here to stay. EFTA01195835 Last week on Bill Moyers and Company, Kim Barker and Andy Kroll explains how dark money contributes to Washington's gridlock and why it keeps politicians from acting in the best interest of their constituent. "1 would argue that if you're wondering why your government is so broke and you can't really get anything passed through Congress, campaignfinance has a lot to do with that." Kroll adds this analogy on super PAC dark money from a conversation that he had with an unnamed senator. I had a conversation with a progressive senator who is not a fan of super PACs and at the time did not have his own sort of individual super PAC... And I said, 'What is this like when you're going to go up against an opponent who does have a super PAC and does have a motivated one-percenter in his corner?' And he said, 'It's like going into a boxing ring. wearing boxing gloves. And the other guy has an Uzi. In this three-minute video, investigative reporters Kim Barker and Andy Kroll tell Bill how dark money contributes to Washington's gridlock and why it keeps politicians from acting in the best interest of their constituents. Watch: http://billmoyers.com zota3/21/what-you-need-to-know-about-dark-monexi In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to issue another big decision on campaign finance, one that could further open the floodgates to unfettered and anonymous contributions, just as the Citizens United case did four years ago. Last week Bill speaks with investigative journalists Kim Barker and Andy Kroll about the role of dark money — and the wealthy donors behind it — in this year's midterm elections. Already, three times as much money has been raised for this year's elections as four years ago, when the Citizens United decision was announced. "This is the era of the empowered 'one percenter'. They're taking action and they're becoming the new, headline players in this political system," Kroll tells Moyers. Kim Barker adds, "People want influence. It's a question of whether we're going to allow it to happen, especially if we're going to allow it to happen and nobody even knows who the influencers are." Web Site: http://billmoyers.com/episode/whos-buying-our-midterm-elections/ Bill Moyers: It's barely spring and already the spending for this year's midterm elections is three times higher than it was on the very day the Supreme Court issued the Citizens United decision back in 2010. That one fired the starting gun that set off the mad dash for campaign cash. Look at this headline: "Billionaires use super PACs to advance pet causes." And this: "Federal super PACs spend big on local elections." Right. Unlimited and secret cash is no longer just for the White House or Congressional races — it's even being thrown at state and municipal races — right down to County Sheriff and school board. I could go on, but don't take my word for it. Listen instead to two of the best journalists covering the world of money and politics. Kim Barker reports for the independent, non- profit news organization ProPublica. She specializes in "dark money" from those so-called "social welfare"groups that keep the identity of their donors secret. KIM BARKER: Dark money-- these are organizations that can take unlimited amounts of money from billionaires or corporations or unions or anybody. And then turned around and spend money on political ads without saying who their donors are. They don't have to tell who the money came from. EFTA01195836 They do have to say what it's being spent on. And where it's going. But they don't have to say who the donors are. BILL MOYERS: Yeah, where does all this money go? I mean, it seems to me to be frank, it sometimes sounds like a racket, you know? Lots of money raised. It goes to the campaign managers. It goes to the strategist. It goes to the television stations. And you really wonder if so much of it isn't taken off along the way. Profit margins and all of that. ANDY KROLL: It's absolutely a self-enrichment process for the consultants and the ad makers, you know? The "mad men" of American politics. And all the different players, the political professionals in this process. I mean, one aspect of all of this dark money sloshing around in our politics, as Kim and I have written about a lot is that, you know, these folks on the left and the right pass money around between different organizations, you know? Americansfor a Better Tomorrow passes it to Americans for Better Leadership passes it to Americansfor a Better Leadership and a Better Tomorrow. And all along the way, someone is taking a cut. A consultant has to be attached to these organizations as this dark money moves around. And people are getting rich off of that. KIM BARKER: I would argue that if you're wondering why your government is so broke and you can't really get anything passed through Congress, campaign finance has a lot to do with that. I think it means that a candidate for office has to wake up in the morning and not just worry about what his or her opponent is doing. They have to worry about what his or her opponent's outside money group is doing and what their own outside money group is doing. So you have this sense that as soon as you get into office, you have to start raising money for the next election. It means you can't take a stand on an issue that might prove unpopular. It means that you have to go hand in hand with what your party thinks. It just sort of means that we're going to get more of the same, more of this gridlock, which benefits a lot of these same billionaires that are putting money into the system in the first place. ANDY KROLL: Political science has shown us that members of Congress are already far more receptive to the interests and the ideas and the whims of the very wealthy in this country, sort of the middle class, and basically could not care less about what poor and working people think or want in terms of policymaking. Add super PACs into the mix, add dark money groups into the mix, when really it's just one donor in your district who can make or break you. And the real Big Ugly is local and state level as unfettered money from empowered millionaires and billionaires is even stronger now, as the money goes a lot farther at the state level than it does in Congress. One example is the DeVos family in Michigan, cofounders of Amway, the multilevel marketing company. Big time Republicans, long-time members of the Koch network, the donor network. So in 2012, Michigan does the unthinkable and passes a right-to-work law. The cradle of organized labor is now a right-to-work state. Employing a multi-year effort, their funding was able to elect Republican candidates on every level essentially helping to engineer a complete Republican takeover in Michigan in 2010. The state House, the state Senate, and the Governor's Mansion all were occupied by Republicans. Last week in HARDBALL with Chris Matthews: Let me finish tonight with this. When the communists in the world were in full cry they like to say that our democracy was a sham. That we will all being controlled by the Rockefellers, they and the biggest money boys were really the ones calling EFTA01195837 the shots in our country and elections were just for appearance. Well just think how much the old guys in the Kremlin and their acolytes around the world would love to see the scene this weekend in Las Vegas. One after another the men seeking the Republican presidential nomination in 2016 are trooping into the gambling resort to borrow before and kiss the ring of a guy name Sheldon Adelson. A guy who has made a fortune in the casino business Vegas and overseas in Macau. Adelson has a few interests close to his heart. He is a rapid hawk in Middle East politics, hating be very idea of a two- state solution. He also hates online betting which threatens his brick and mortar gaming halls. And big surprise he hates unions, who she obviously sees as gobblers of the wealth that he believes should go undiluted from roulette, blackjack and craps tables right from the rakes of the croupiers into the bank of one, Sheldon Adelson. Well so much for free enterprise. Nothing wrong with malting money. But what about our democracy? Does it seem right to you, whatever your politics to see grown men, men with the ambition and moxy to think of being an American president, to bow for the personal approval of a man who were it not for his money, would be just another older guy with a couple of things that he cares about politically. I remember the New York congressman that got caught up in the Abscam scandal, caught on video taking cash from a pretend Arab sheik, who said on camera basically and essentially he knew how democracy worked, "money talks" he said knowingly "and RS walks." Perhaps we should insist that the Republican wannabes out there sniffing around after Adelson should have to do there kissing with the surveillance cameras working. At least then we could see the stooping these guys are willing to do in order to conquer. Chis Matthews It is not just Republicans like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, I feel the same about progressives like Michael Bloomberg, because these billionaires should not be allowed to have this undue influence over our elected officials. If these Masters of the Universe are truly interested in helping society, let them use their money to directly fix the problems (build schools, factories, providing scholarships, funding low cost housing, etc.) and not buy politicians who will humiliatingly kiss your ring as if they were the character that Marlon Brando played in The Godfather. And the worse thing about Dark Money is that there is absolutely little or no transparency, enabling fundraisers of Dark Money to become a legal form or bribery, because few rich people make political contributions without expecting something — a QUID PRO QUO. DARK MONEY is a disease that is destroying our democracy and with or without the Supreme Court and whatever your politics this has to be changed ,_Inline image 10 How many folks do you know who say they don't want to drink anything before going to bed because they'll have to get up during the night. Heart Attack and Water — I never knew all of this ! Interesting Something else I didn't know ... I asked my Doctor why people need to urinate so much at night time. Answer from my Cardiac Doctor — Gravity holds water in the lower part of your body when you are upright (legs swell). When you lie down and the lower body (legs and etc) seeks level with the kidneys, it is then that the kidneys remove the water because it is easier. This then ties in with the last statement! EFTA01195838 I knew you need your minimum water to help flush the toxins out of your body, but this was news to me. Correct time to drink water... Very Important. From A Cardiac Specialist! Drinking water at a certain time maximizes its effectiveness on the body 2 glasses of water after waking up — helps activate internal organs 1 glass of water 3o minutes before a meal — helps digestion 1 glass of water before taking a bath — helps lower blood pressure 1 glass of water before going to bed — avoids stroke or heart attack I can also add to this... My Physician told me that water at bed time will also help prevent night time leg cramps. Your leg muscles are seeking hydration when they cramp and wake you up with a Charlie Horse. Mayo Clinic Aspirin Dr. Virend Somers, is a Cardiologist from the Mayo Clinic, who is lead author of the report in the July 29, 2008 issue of the Journal of the American College of Cardiology. Most heart attacks occur in the day, generally between 6 A.M. and noon. Having one during the night, when the heart should be most at rest, means that something unusual happened. Somers and his colleagues have been working for a decade to show that sleep apnea is to blame. 1. If you take an aspirin or a baby aspirin once a day, take it at night. The reason: Aspirin has a 24-hour "half-life"; therefore, if most heart attacks happen in the wee hours of the morning, the Aspirin would be strongest in your system. 2. FYI, Aspirin lasts a really long time in your medicine chest, for years, (when it gets old, it smells like vinegar). Please read on... Something that we can do to help ourselves — nice to know. Bayer is making crystal aspirin to dissolve instantly on the tongue. They work much faster than the tablets. Why keep Aspirin by your bedside? It's about Heart Attacks. There are other symptoms of a heart attack, besides the pain on the left arm. One must also be aware of an intense pain on the chin, as well as nausea and lots of sweating; however, these symptoms may also occur less frequently. Note: There may be NO pain in the chest during a heart attack. The majority of people (about 6o%) who had a heart attack during their sleep did not wake up. However, if it occurs, the chest pain may wake you up from your deep sleep. If that happens, immediately dissolve two aspirins in your mouth and swallow them with a bit of water. Afterwards: — Call 911. — Phone a neighbor or a family member who lives very close by.- Say "heart attack!" — Say that you have taken 2 Aspirins. Take a seat on a chair or sofa near the front door, and wait for their arrival and ...DO NOT LIE DOWN! EFTA01195839 A Cardiologist has stated that if each person after receiving this e-mail, sends it to 10 people, probably one life could be saved! I have already shared this information. What about you? Do forward this message. It may save lives! "Life is a one-time gift" Just in case you hadn't see this ****** The Globalization of NATO In January 1961, US President Dwight D Eisenhower used his farewell address to warn the nation of what he viewed as one of its greatest threats: the military-industrial complex composed of military contractors and lobbyists perpetuating war. Eisenhower warned that "an immense military establishment and a large arms industry" had emerged as a hidden force in US politics and that Americans "must notfail to comprehend its grave implications". The speech may have been Eisenhower's most courageous and prophetic moment. Fifty years and some later, Americans find themselves in what seems like perpetual war. No sooner do we draw down on operations in Iraq than leaders demand interventions in Libya, Syria, Iran and most recently in the Ukraine. While perpetual war constitutes perpetual losses for families, and ever expanding budgets, it also represents perpetual profits for a new and larger complex of business and government interests. The new military-industrial complex is fuelled by a conveniently ambiguous and unseen enemy: the terrorist. Former President George W Bush and his aides insisted on calling counter-terrorism efforts a "war". This concerted effort by leaders like former Vice President Dick Cheney (himself theformer CEO of defense-contractor Halliburton) was not some empty rhetorical exercise. Not only would a war maximize the inherent powers of the president, but it would maximize the budgets for military and homeland agencies. This new coalition of companies, agencies, and lobbyists dwarfs the system known by Eisenhower when he warned Americans to "guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence... by the military-industrial complex". Ironically, it has had some of its best days under President Barack Obama who has radically expanded drone attacks and claimed that he alone determines what a war is for the purposes of consulting Congress. Now the new enemy of convenience is Vladimir Putin. The new reason is Russian troops on the Ukrainian border and the annexation of Crimea. Both give reason for hawks in the West to demand that NATO reciprocate with a military show of force, even though that this could lead to the resumption of a new Cold War. Again, the world is enveloped in a blanket of perpetual conflict. Invasions, occupation, illicit sanctions, and regime change have become currencies and orders of the day. One organization — the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) — is repeatedly, and very controversially, involved in some form or another in many of these conflicts led by the US and its allies. NATO spawned from the Cold War. Its existence was justified by Washington and Western Bloc politicians as a guarantor against any Soviet and Eastern Bloc invasion of Western Europe, but all along the Alliance served to cement Washington's influence in Europe and continue what was actually America's post-World War II occupation of the European continent. In 1991 the raison d'être of the Soviet threat ended with the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War. Nevertheless NATO remained and continues to EFTA01195840 alarmingly expand eastward, antagonizing Russia and its ex-Soviet allies. China and Iran are also increasingly monitoring NATO's moves as it comes into more frequent contact with them. And the BIG UGLY is that no one in the West, including progressive media is challenging their over-reach and potential policies that could create unintended consequences. Certain critics say that Yugoslavia was a turning point for the Atlantic Alliance and its mandate. The organization moved from the guise of a defensive posture into an offensive pose under the pretexts of humanitarianism. Starting from Yugoslavia, NATO began its journey towards becoming a global military force. From its wars in the Balkans, it began to broaden its international area of operations outside of the Euro-Atlantic zone into the Caucasus, Central Asia, East Africa, the Middle East, North Africa, and the Indian Ocean. It has virtually turned the Mediterranean Sea into a NATO lake with the NATO Mediterranean Dialogue and the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, while it seeks to do the same to the Black Sea and gain a strategic foothold in the Caspian Sea region. The Gulf Security Initiative between NATO and the Gulf Cooperation Council seeks to also dominate the Persian Gulf and to hem in Iran. Israel has become a de facto member of the military organization. At the same time, NATO vessels sail the Red Sea and the Gulf of Aden. These warships are deployed off the coasts of Somalia, Djibouti, and Yemen as part of NATO's objectives to create a naval cordon of the seas controlling important strategic waterways and maritime transit routes. As such these critics maintain that the Atlantic Alliance's ultimate aim is to fix and fasten the American Empire. NATO has clearly played an important role in complementing the US strategy for dominating Eurasia. This includes the encirclement of Russia, China, Iran, and their allies with a military ring subservient to Washington. The global missile shield project, the militarization of Japan, the insurgencies in Libya and Syria, the threats against Iran, and the formation of a NATO-like military alliance in the Asia-Pacific region are components of this colossal geopolitical project. NATO's globalization, however, is bringing together a new series of Eurasian counter-alliances with global linkages that stretch as far as Latin America. The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) have been formed by Russia, China, and their allies as shields against the US and NATO and as a means to challenge them. As the globalization of NATO unfolds the risks of nuclear war become more and more serious with the Atlantic Alliance headed towards a collision course with Russia, China, and Iran that could ignite World War III. And no better example is the Western powers wooing of Ukraine money and the possibility of joining the EU and NATO that led to the overthrow of the "corrupt" but "democratically elected" government of former President Viktor Yanukovych. We need to understand how dominant economic interests are supported by the "internationalization" of NATO and how and why this military entity has extended its areas of jurisdiction from the European-North Atlantic region into new frontiers and what does this truly mean. Unlike the most rabid critics who argue that NATO's growing over-reach and agenda has grown from keeping the Soviet Union as bay and protecting the sovereignty of Western Countries under the alliance to encircle Russia, China, Iran and any other countries not in support of the U.S. and Western leaders objectives, I do not propose dismantling NATO. Because I believe, (maybe naively), that this globally military agenda can be reversed when people around the world, in the true spirit of internationalism and national sovereignty, join hands in bringing transparency to NATO and its corporate sponsors with the goal of neutering the militarism of the international Military-Industrial Complex that increasingly employs gunboat diplomacy to advance its sponsors' economic agenda. Perpetual war represents perpetual profits for the ever expanding business and government interests and NATO has become an integral part of this dangerous and destructive cycle. When are people going to come to their senses and realize that war is failure and that perpetual has to be stopped 9 EFTA01195841  ****** As a young African American growing up in the white suburbs of New York City in the 5os and 6os, which had its own societal segregation, early on I realized that if I wanted to get beyond the shackles of being a second class citizen I had to find my voice and the nearest and best place to go was Manhattan, the city where dreams were possible, even for a young black kid from Mount Vernon New York. And early on I realized, I had to surround myself with the movers and shakers among my pier group and older mentors willing to share their time and wisdom. This week I discovered that one of my mentors died several weeks ago, and although I really only knew him through my childhood friend and first business partner, Michael Johnson, this icon of the New York theater world for five decades, GENE FEIST, ignited my creative juices that set me on the course of developing a group of skills that are part of the foundation that I use today. EFTA01195842 Gene Feist (January 16, 1923 - March 17, 2014, New York City) was an American playwright, theatre director and co-founder of the Roundabout Theater Company. He authored fifteen plays or adaptations, of which two were published by Samuel French Inc. Born in Brooklyn along with his twin brother Harold, Feist grew up in the Coney Island district where his father owned and operated the bar "Bucket of Blood". His love of reading made him somewhat of an outcast in his community during his youth. In high school he pursued studies in print making, and after graduating he joined the United States Army Air Forces where he was trained as an airplane mechanic. During World War II he was stationed in the South Pacific where his talents were ultimately put to use as a writer for press releases and other journalistic aims as well as work as a librarian. After the war he attended Carnegie Mellon University where he became a close friend of the artist and fellow student Andy Warhol. But I am not sure if there would have ever been a Roundabout if not for his wife Kathe Feist, who along with Gene founded the Roundabout Theatre Company, first located in the basement of a supermarket building owned by the housing development in Manhattan where the Feists lived. Kathe a stage actress was professionally known as Elizabeth Owens and appeared in more than 30 plays over the next 25. She died from breast cancer, aged 77, on March 7, 2005. Gene remained as the Roundabout's Founding Director and he died in March at the age of 91. Gene and Kathe conceived of the Roundabout as a home to classics by Shaw, Pirandello, Ibsen and the like. (The first production was Strindberg's The Father.) "Everybody in New York was doing new plays; nobody was doing the classics," he said, years later. "Any new play must have some litera►y merit or historical reference to be put on by us." To encourage attendance, an inexpensive season subscription of $5 for three plays was offered. In its first season, the company had 400 subscribers. Early productions attracted both established actors and rising stars such as Kim Hunter, Vincent Price, Irene Worth, Tammy Grimes, Malcolm McDowell and Philip Bosco. Along the way the Roundabout had its ups and downs, including filing for Chapter n bankruptcy protection in 1978, and losing its lease on its 23rd Street home, which was later converted into a movie theatre. Eventually, the company found a new home in an old, much larger building off Union Square, which was formerly a headquarters for Tammany Hall. Gene stepped down as artistic director in 1988. In 1991 the Roundabout made an unprecedented leap for a New York nonprofit for the time, moving to Criterion Center, a former movie theatre, and thus becoming only the second nonprofit (after Lincoln Center Theater) to have a berth on Broadway. Today, the Roundabout, a multistage Goliath that is one of the nation's most important nonprofit companies, commands five stages around and about Times Square: the American Airlines Theatre, Stephen Sondheim Theatre and Studio 54 on Broadway; and the Laura Pels Theatre and the Underground Black Box on West 46th Street Off-Broadway. It's considerably more real estate than Gene began with when, in 1965, he and Kathe set up shop in a 15o-seat theatre carved out of a converted supermarket basement on West 26th Street in Chelsea. I last saw Gene several years ago in London when he visited Michael Johnson for two weeks, and at the age of 88/89 he could still up the room with his humor, presence and his jest for life. We last spoke a year later when I asked him to read my dear friend and international song writer, Jack Robinson's play "Walking the Dogs." Obviously his health had declined but I did not know it at the time, so he was unable to really help us. Still, Gene tried to inspire us to continue on and obviously it was this optimism that birth The Roundabout and inflected everyone who was lucky enough to be part of his EFTA01195843 orbit. Gene you will be dearly missed and I thank you for inspiring me to grow beyond my station. In The Washington Post this week, E.J. Dionne wrote an op-ed — The GOP must admit it was wrong on Obamacare — asking is there any accountability in American politics for being completely wrong? Is there any cost to those who say things that turn out not to be true and then, when their fabrications or false predictions are exposed, calmly move on to concocting new claims as if they had never made the old ones? The fact that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) hit its original goal this week of signing up more than 7 million people through its insurance exchanges ought to be a moment of truth — literally as well as figuratively. It ought to give everyone, particularly members of the news media, pause over how reckless the opponents of change have been in malting instant judgments and outlandish charges. When the health-care Web site went haywire last fall, conservatives were absolutely certain this technological failure meant that the entire reform effort was doomed. If you doubt this, try a Google search keyed to that period relating the word "doomed" to the health-care law. It should be said that the general public was much wiser. A CNN poll in November that Post blogger Greg Sargent highlighted at the time found a majority (54 percent to 45 percent) saying that the problems facing the law "will eventually be solved." Political moderates took this view by 55 percent to 43 percent, independents by 5o percent to 48 percent. Only Republicans — by a whopping 72 percent to 27 percent — and conservatives (by 66 percent to 33 percent) thought the law could never be fixed. Their representatives in Washington, moderate conservatives as well as the tea party's loyalists, followed the base's lead. In mid-November, for example, Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) told Fox News flatly that the law is "destined tofail," `fundamentallyflawed" and "not readyfor prime time." House Speaker John Boehner predicted dire outcomes before the Web site fiasco. He repeatedly insisted, as he did in July, that "even the Obama administration knows the 'train wreck' will only get worse." This attitude affected more neutral observers. Forbes magazine posted a piece on Nov. 22 under the headline: "What to do Valid when Obamacare collapses." The op-ed modestly acknowledged that "it's too soon to write an epitaph for Obamacare,"but then barged forward, since "its crises are piling up so fast that one has to begin looking ahead." At this point, the etiquette of commentary typically requires a "to be sure" paragraph, as in: To be sure, the law could still face other problems, blah, blah, blah. But such paragraphs are timid and often insincere hedges. After all, every successful program, even well-established ones such as Medicare, Social Security and food stamps, confronts ongoing challenges. So let's say it out loud: The ACA is doing exactly what its supporters said it would do. It is getting health insurance to millions who didn't have it before. (The Los Angeles Times pegged the number at 9.5 million at the beginning of the week.) And it's working especially well in places such as Kentucky, where state officials threw themselves fully and competently behind the cause of signing up the uninsured. Those who want to repeal the law will have to admit that they are willing to deprive EFTA01195844 these people, or some large percentage of them, of insurance. Too many conservatives would prefer not to say upfront what they really believe: They don't want the federal government to spend the significant sums of money needed to get everyone covered. Admitting this can sound cruel, so they insist that their objections are to the ACA's alleged unworkability, or to "a Washington takeover of the health system" (which makes you wonder what they think of Medicare, a far more centralized program). Or they peddle isolated horror stories that the fact-checkers usually discover are untrue or misleading. Thus the moment of truth, about the facts and about our purposes. From now on, will there be more healthy skepticism about conservative claims against the ACM Given how many times the law's enemies have said the sky was falling when it wasn't, will there be tougher interrogation of their next round of apocalyptic predictions? Will their so-called alternatives be analyzed closely to see how many now-insured people would actually lose coverage under the "replacement" plans? Perhaps more importantly, will we finally be honest about the real argument here: Do we or do we not want to put in the effort and money it takes to guarantee all Americans health insurance? If we do — and we should — let's get on with doing it the best way we can. I include this op-ed by Dionne because Conservative Republicans never own up to their own mistakes. Today, Cheney and Rumsfeld will say if they had to do it all over again, even knowing what they know today, they would still attack Iraq. But what about the Weapons of Mass Destruction? Where is the Yellow Cake? And what about Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz assertions in 2003 that the Iraqi war could be done on the cheap and that it would largely pay for itself. Today the US government says that the Iraq war cost more than $800 billion and when long term benefits are paid out connected with the death and injury of US troops in both Afghanistan and Iraq, the number is expected to rise to about $4 and possibly $6 trillion. These are some of the same people who castigated Susan Rice for confusing one sentence on a single Sunday morning news show concerning `who was behind the attack in Benghazi that killed the US Ambassador to Libya and three other Americans.' What about the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as a result of an unnecessary War Of Choice, creating millions of people to flee their homes and the country, destabilizing the entire region and giving al Qaeda and Iran a foothold which they hadn't had in the country? So why are these naysayers not called on the carpet to apologize? — and instead of replacing the Affordable Healthcare Act, with a promise of cherry-picking the parts that are undeniably wanted by most Americans without addressing a way of paying for them — why don't they just fold their cards and work with Democrats and the President to improve it? I still have Republican friends who truly believe that Barrack Obama is the worse President ever but won't acknowledge that the country is better in almost every measure than it was five years ago. They sort of gloss over the fact that five years ago the US was in two wars without and end, an economy that had gone from a $230 billion surplus to a $1.1 billion deficit, financial markets in free-fall and half of what they are today, a job loss of 800,000 jobs a month and growing compared to 46 straight months of job-growth as of last month including 192,000 new jobs in March 2014, banking system on the verge of complete breakdown and a housing market that had collapsed and has since recovered. These critics continue to lie, distort through innuendos and disinformation, covering up without penalty. This has to be stopped! So, thank you E.J. Dionne for calling these naysayers/hypocrites out on Obamacare.... And this is my rant of the week.... And I hope that it is yours too EFTA01195845  WEEK's READINGS Tax-Hating States Totally Fine With Taxing The Poor Inline image 7 As everyone knows, Southern politicians despise taxes more than just about anything -- except perhaps cornbread with sugar, or iced tea without. This established rule of the universe makes a new report by the Tax Foundation especially curious, at least at first look. The group, which typically takes an anti- tax stance, combined each states sales tax rate with the average local sales tax rate, as of Jan. 1. The group found that the five states with the highest average combined state-local tax rates are mostly Southern-fried: Tennessee (9.45 percent), Arkansas (9.19 percent), Louisiana (8.89 percent), Washington (8.88 percent), and Oklahoma (8.72 percent). The combined sales tax rate is also high in New York (8.47 percent) and California (8.40). Four states, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire and Delaware, collect no sales taxes at all. Not mentioned in the report are some of the factors that play into high sales tax rates. In the South, especially, property taxes are very low, and voters have historically rejected attempts to raise them. The region also has a history of handing out huge tax breaks to large manufactures in order to persuade them to move there. Alabama, for example, handed out a sweet package of $253 million in tax breaks and other incentives in order to woo a Mercedes-Benz plant to the state in 1993. A decade later, the plant reaped an additional $11.5 million in tax breaks for an expansion that didn't create any new jobs. Washington, number four on the list, passed a package of $9 billion in tax breaks in November in order to keep Boeing to locate production of its newest jet in Seattle. So with few other options available to pay for things like roads and schools, states have been forced to boost sales taxes, a form of revenue generation generally considered regressive -- meaning it hurts poor people the most. That's because the cost of food, clothing and other purchased goods tend to make up a higher percentage of a low income consumer's budget than for people with higher incomes. The poor are also less likely to own property, and thus less likely to benefit from lower tax rates for homes and land. Sales taxes affect the poor disproportionally more than wealthier people as their total income is in a continuous churn, whereas the wealthy can shield income in 401k programs and the rich can frame earned income as dividends, whereby CEOs pay lower tax rates than their secretaries and administrative assistants. A tourist boot navigate" through the haze ofthe Guangdong Providence ofChina this month. The Countayc rapid urbanization was cited as contributing to pollution. It almost appears that every month there is a new epidemic and although none compare to the magnitude of the Plague of Justinian, which historians say killed 40% of the people living in Europe between 541 and 542 and then the Black Plague which historians say killed between 30% to 70% of the people living in Europe between the years of 1346 to 1350, as well as a number of other plagues around EFTA01195846 the world and other diseases including smallpox, yellow fever, measles, influenza, typhus, cholera, polio, bubonic plague, dengue fever,