EFTA01133119.pdf

From: Gregory Brown < To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 03/09/2014 Date: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:20:39 +0000 Attachments: Human_activities_are_changing_the climate Royal Academies of_Science February_201 4.docx; The_Clear_Benefits of_a_HIgher_Wige_EdTitorial Boar] lYT_02 9 9_2014.docx; Why_Americans_Are_So_Folarized,Education and Evolution_Avi_TuschTnan_Feb._28,2 014.docx; Fixing_Inequality_Won't Hurt_the_Economy_MATTHEW_O'BRIEN The_Atlantic March 3„2014.docx; Putints Sixongman_Act_Is_A_Sign_Of_Weakness_AgDY_BORONCTITZ- ethe_New Yorker_03_54_2014.docx; Obama_balget_seeks_new_spending new taxes to boost economy„tame_debt_Zachary_ Goldfarb TWP 03 04 2014.docx• The_two charts_you_need_to_see_to_tmderstand_Obama_Christopheringraham_TWP_03 04 20 Ittdocx; Putin's_error_in_Ukraine_is_the_kind_that_leads_to_catastrophe_David_Ignatius_TWP_Ma rch_2,_2014.docx; How the Ukraine crisis_ends_Hemy_Kissinger_TWP_03_06_2014.docx; Herbie 1-fancock cio.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 DEAR FRIEND 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/UL4zoo8xijc 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 EFTA01133119 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 tofigure 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 EFTA01133120  0.5°C „„ -orc 0.5•C v ro 01 t tvs 0.5°C 10-year average g -o.sx s3g E2 0°C 30-year average 42 E.: —4 n ea -0.5°C 0.5'C - crc zi; 60.year average -0.5°C 1850 1900 1950 2800 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: hnp://dels.nas.edukesourcesistatic-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. ****** 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 EFTA01133121 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 tofight those guysfor 12 more 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, EFTA01133122 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. 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 EFTA01133123 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. EFTA01133124 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. EFTA01133125  .ETT: INCREASING EARNED INCOME TAX IT WOULD NEW LOWER INCOME WORKERS The billionaire investor Warren Buffett told CNBC's Becky Quick Monday morning that the Earned Income Tax Credit -- a tax break for low-income Americans aimed at encouraging work -- would actually be the most direct way to help America's working poor with fewest negative side effects. '°The Earned Income Tax Credit I think is much clearer," Buffett said. "That puts more money in the pockets ofpeople earning low wages and that's what. like to see." President Barack Obama urged reforming the EITC in his State of the Union address earlier this year. The IRS claims the tax break helped lift 6.6 million people out of poverty in 2011, the most recent year for which full data is available, according to the Associated Press. Currently the credit does significantly more for families with children. Obama's proposal would expand the EITC for workers without kids. A July study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that expanding the EITC by lowering the age of eligibility for childless workers would lift an additional 300,000 Americans out of poverty. Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to WAD an hour as one way to life Americans out of poverty. While some research shows that a minimum wage hike would boost the economy and eventually create jobs, some argue that a minimum wage hike would discourage businesses from hiring workers because of increased payroll costs. Buffett noted in his interview with CNBC that "there's tradeoffs on the minimum wage and you can do all these studies but they don't know." Changes to the EITC likely wouldn't affect employers' hiring decisions since it won't raise wages. Additionally, any expansion of the tax credit would be sure to go only to the working poor, while some of the beneficiaries of an increased minimum wage would be teenagers and others simply working minimum wage jobs for extra cash. "(The EITC) doesn't distort the market system in any great way," Buffett said. Very rarely do I disagree with the Oracle of Omaha. Yes studies say that the EITC produces an immediate effect but raising the minimum wage is aldn to a rising tide that raises wages for everyone, especially those at or near the bottom. The minimum wage especially needs raising when there is talk in Washington in both the Executive and Congressional Branches of government about cutting entitlements, which are the safety net for the elderly, poor and millions of children. The problem is that when benefits are cut and the safety net is eviscerated the elderly, poor and children suffer far more than everyone else. Today 15% of America (approximately 5o million Americans) live below the poverty line, down from 22% (39.9 million individuals) in the late 50s. Before the mid-1970s, economic growth in the United States was associated with falling poverty rates. If that relationship had held, poverty would have been eradicated in the 1980s. The decoupling of rising growth and falling poverty, however, means that Americans are working longer and harder but becoming poorer and less economically secure. EFTA01133126 Quick facts $22,314: In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four. 15.1%: 15.1 percent — just over 46 million Americans — were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007. 27.4%: Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent. 45.8%: 45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children. 28.0%: In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour). 18-25: Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25. 1.8x: The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high. Other dimensions of poverty 33.9%: The official poverty rate is widely accepted as being inadequate in capturing those whose earnings make it difficult to make ends meet. To account for this, many cite the "twice poverty" rate, which is double the threshold ($44,628 in 2010 for a family of four) and provides a more accurate measurement of material deprivation. In 2010, the twice poverty rate was 33.9 percent. 44.3%: The further below the official poverty line you fall, the more vulnerable you are. Nearly half (44.3 percent) of the poor are in deep poverty (living on half or less of the official poverty line; this deep-poverty threshold stood at $11,057 in 2010 for a family of four). MOVING IN AND OUT OF POVERTY Since 1973's historical low of 11.1 percent poverty in the United States, poverty rates generally rise during recessions and drop during recoveries. The recovery following the 2001 recession, however, saw poverty increase and then further explode during the Great Recession. From 2008 through 2009, 32.2 percent were in poverty for at least one month, and 52.6 percent were below twice poverty for a least one month. In addition, 4.6 percent were in poverty for the entirety of the two-year period, while 18 percent were at twice poverty for the entirety. Therefore, the official poverty rate of 15.1 percent understates the number of people who experience poverty. Income inequality is greatest cause of higher poverty rates EFTA01133127 Income inequality is the largest factor contributing to higher poverty rates. Increased numbers of minorities and single-mother-headed households are often cited as determinants of higher poverty rates, though they are much smaller contributing factors. A study of the 1979 — 2007 period finds: 5.5: The largest contributor to the overall rise in the poverty rate is income inequality, which increased poverty rates by 5.5 percentage points. 0.9: Changing racial composition accounts for a o.9 percentage-point increase in poverty rates. 1.4: Family structure (single-mother headed households) accounts for a 1.4 percentage-point increase in poverty rates. 13.8: Increased educational attainment decreased poverty rates 2.7 percentage points, and income growth contributed to a 3.8 percentage-point decrease in poverty rates. Beyond the above numbers we Americans should understand that it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable in society. This is not about wealth redistribution or saddling younger generations with the costs of helping their elders. It is just that it is the right thing to do, because there would not be anything for future generations to inherit if their elders hadn't left it to them. Almost everywhere else on the planet, not only does society take care of children, elders and the infirmed, it is viewed as both a responsibility and privilege and for the richest country in the world to not feel the same is a shame and a travesty. I realize that this may sound like a non-sequitur, but one has to wonder why why Conservatives are so eager to give rich people more money in the form of lower taxes and other benefits because it encourages them to work harder and produce more, while at the same time these same people believe that cuffing programs/money to the poor people will result in them working harder But then isn't this what Mitt Romney was alluding to in his famed 47% gaffe. Last Sunday I watch in amazement the Sunday morning network television news shows, as pundit after pundit took their best shot to describe the situation in Ukraine and Conservative Republicans most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham blamed President Obama for Vladimir Putin feeling dismissive of the U.S. role as the only indisputable super power and sending troops into Ukraine's largely Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula, home to the Kremlin's Black Sea fleet. How dare he? Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial: "In the brutal were all of global power politics, Ukraine is in particular a casualty of Mr. Obama'sfailure to enforce is "red line" on Syria. When the leader of the world's only super power issues a milita►y ultimatum and then blinks, others notice The world isfull of love revisionist powers embed actors looking to exploit the opening created by Mr. Obama's retreatfrom global leadership, Mr. Putin is the leading edge of what could quickly become a New World disorder." Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Fox News: "I think that Putin is playing chess and we are playing marbles." Senator John McCain on Fox News: "This is a blatant act by Vladimir Putin and one that must be unacceptable to the world community. Why do we care? Because this is the ultimate result of aflecklessforeign policy where nobody believes in America stress anymore." "The President of the United States believes that the Cold War is over. That'sfine and it is over, but Putin doesn't believe it's over." EFTA01133128 Senator Lindsey Graham on CNN: "Stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators, it is not your strong suit. Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody's eyes roll including mine. We have a weak and indecisive President that invites aggression." Rudy Giuliani (chuckling) on Fox News: "Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half a day. He makes a decision and he executes it quickly, then everybody reacts.... That's what you call a leader. President Obama he's gotta think about it, he's gotta go over it again, he's gotta talk to more people about it." First of all, this is not our fight. Secondly, as Colin Powell warned President Bush, "if you break it you own it." Finally, where do these guys get their moral authority? Look at our history. Since I became an adult, the United States invaded Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again, in this does not include proxy wars in Nicaragua, Angola and elsewhere and coup in the Africa, Middle East, South East Asia and Central and South America. It is understandable why Putin might feel that he had the moral authority to stop insurrection in a neighboring country that could bleed elsewhere and where 25% of the people speak Russian. And when you look at it thought his lens, to be honest, it was a wise move for him to make. But blaming President Obama for not being able to put the fear of God into a dictator who views himself as "the" master of the universe, is as ridiculous as Putin looks riding a horse in the Russian winter bare-chested. We are a democracy. These same pundits and politicians who accuse the President of being weak, are the same pundits and politicians who accuse him of acting like a dictator when he threatens executive action or take punitive action against our enemies without their consent. Imagine if the President acted as Rudy Giuliani suggested, how do you think Rogers, McCain and Graham would react? And Lindsey Graham's nonsense of the U.S. putting nuclear defense sites (rockets) in Poland, "creating a democratic noose around Putin's Russia" would garner the same escalated anger and outrage from America, if Russia did the same in Cuba — this is wacky, beyond dangerous and insane. You have to look at both sides of the coin before making decision, but this is not the case from these idiots who would rather shoot first. What these same hawkish pundits and politicians forget is that we need Putin to help us deescalate the civil war in Syria and pressure Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions. And backing him into a corner in Ukraine is not going to endear him to work with us elsewhere. On Sunday's Meet The Press, host David Gregory started out saying that the Ukrainian situation was somehow a leadership problem for President Obama "that bad actors take him seriously." Even though I am not a political scientist and I can tell you that this is short-sighted. Aside from possibly being the richest person on the planet and the undisputed dictator of his country, Putin has the second most powerful military in the world. And if he doesn't want insurrection on his border, on-one can stop him. The same is true here. If an American President decided to invade Cuba, for any trivial reason, (think Grenada), do you think that the Russians could or would try to stop us? Of course NOT.... In this case, what Putin, might do is annex one of the former Soviet Republics or maybe a piece of one, such as Crimea as his retribution and to save face. The United States has to stop seeing itself as the World's police. First of all it is too expensive. And secondly, universally people don't like police, until they need hem. And then when you take side, one of the unintended consequences is that you often create enemies. Look at Egypt. The army was praised by the Egyptian people for overthrowing Mubarak and then Morsi and now many Egyptians see them EFTA01133129 as oppressors. I watched NBC News' political director Chuck Todd "Putin acts, Obama warns, Putin acts, Obama warns." "And the US should put Russia out of the G8." WHY? Yes the United States could try to impose sanctions on Russia and kick them out of the G8, but then Russia would cut off natural gas supplies and crude to Western Europe, reeking economic havoc on some of the weaker countries. Also, lets remember that one of the big problems in Ukraine is that it is broke and in need of money. So if we run down the road of being Ukraine's savior, it comes with a cost. Russia bought off Ukraine's President Yanukovych off with US$15 billion and it is estimated the country needs three- times this much. Do we have to collectively ask ourselves do the taxpayers in the US, UK, France and Germany want to shoulder this burden? I don't think so. Don't let our ego have us write a check that the American taxpayers won't want to pay. Ukraine is Putin's problem, lets let him solve it. And sending tanks in to Crimea is not a lasting solution even for Vladimir Putin. President Obama plays the long ball, while McCain, Graham, Cruz and the 24 hour new cycle, reacts to every knee jerk, often without considering the full scope and consequences. Right now there is no mass genocide in the Ukraine, and the former Ukrainian President who was just released from jail, presided over an administration so corrupt, that even her supporters don't want to see her returned to power. Therefore, why not let things play out, and then make an assessment. America use to lead by example, but after World War 2 it became corrupted by power and and ego and now anything less than being a bully is seen as weakness. When I first started drinking alcohol, an older friend gave me sage advice, "if you don't know, sip slow, and if you use this same dictumfor everything in life you will do well." I am glad that we have an intelligent urbane cool President who sips slow. And anytime we can use diplomacy over bullying or bullets we win, no matter how long the game goes. We have to ask one important question. Has the Republican Party of John McCain and Lindsey Graham become the second brothers of American politics? Obama takes a Heritage Foundation program on healthcare and its individual mandate what Republicans used to like, but now because they have to play the part of the rebellious brother they have to attack. The Democrats control the administration which includes the IRS, so Republicans have to attack that too. The Democrats control State Department, again little brother has to go on the attack. Then of course this week it is the Ukraine. Let's be real, does any party in power or any leader on the planet have the answer for Vladimir Putin's behavior? Does that make President Obama and the Democrats a big brother? Using this simple analogy, you can see that a lot of what Republicans are doing today is sure partisan robotic behavior. Because if the purpose of the opposition is merely to oppose the Republicans have got that down perfectly. If it is just the play the role of the second brother, they got a cold and any eight year old can play that game. If you think this is over the top listen to former Presidential contender and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who swooned Monday on Fox News, "Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half a day, right?" and "He decided he had to go to their parliament. He went to their parliament. He got permission in 15 minutes." But isn't this the same Putin that Republicans are calling a repugnant dictator? Or as E.J. Dionne wrote in response to Giluliani's comments, "Ah, the joys of dictatorship." No day is complete without some invocation of Benghazi by Republicans. Thus this tweet from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday: "It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression." Graham's friends explain this away as his effort to ward off a tea party challenge in South Carolina's June primary. Bu t that's the point: Republicans indulge in Obama Derangement Syndrome precisely because so many who vote in GOP primaries demand it. EFTA01133130 Republicans typically reply that Democrats were no softies when it came to George W. Bush. There's truth to that, particularly in the final years of his tenure. What they ignore is that Democrats entirely shelved partisanship after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. There was little opposition to Bush's decision to send troops to Afghanistan and less questioning in advance of the Iraq war than there should have been. Moreover, Republicans were utterly unrestrained in casting opposition to Bush's policies as disloyalty to the nation. When Nancy Pelosi accused Bush in 2004 of being "incompetent," Tom Delay, then the House majority leader, denounced the top House Democrat for being "so caught up in the partisan hatredfor President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk." In late September 2004, during the presidential campaign, Bush said that his opponent John Kerry's statements on Iraq "can embolden an enemy," while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) predicted that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." Washington usually responds blandly by saying that "both parties do it." But this isn't true, remember the days of Tip O'Neal working across the aisle with President Reagan and LBJ working with Republican leaders (to the dismay of Southern Democrats) to get the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. What has changed are the politics of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and now Ted Cruz, where it everything is the other side's fault and compromise is a weakness. Note the consistent thread through the GOP attacks: that Democrats — then Kerry, now Obama — are weak and vacillating and give comfort to our foes which has led to Assad killing his own people in Syria and Russian troops marching into Ukraine. Why is it acceptable for supporters of a party to condemn critics as near-traitors when their side is in power and then embrace the right to dissent when the other guys control the White House? Freedom is freedom. There's also this. A remarkably broad cross-party consensus has quickly coalesced around two propositions: the first that we will not commit U.S. military forces in this crisis, but secondly, we should use every realistic form of pressure at our disposal to contain and then reverse Putin's assault on Ukraine's sovereignty. Must we pretend to disagree even when we agree? Unless one is playing the role of the younger brother. And this is my rant of the week WEEK's READINGS Human activities are changing the climate EFTA01133131  0.6 Anomaly (°C) relative to 1961-1990 Annual average 0.4 0.2 0.0 NI P\ A -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE & CAUSES FORWARD Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 5o years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities. In order to discern the human influence on climate, scientists must consider many natural variations that affect temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate from local to global scale, on timescales from days to decades and longer. One natural variation is the El Niflo Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an irregular alternation between warming and cooling (lasting about two to seven years) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean that causes significant year-to-year regional and global shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. Volcanic eruptions also alter climate, in part increasing the amount of small (aerosol) particles in the stratosphere that reflect or absorb sunlight, leading to a short-term surface cooling lasting typically about two to three years. Over hundreds of thousands of years, slow, recurring variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun, which alter the distribution of solar energy received by Earth, have been enough to trigger the ice age cycles of the past 800,000 years. Fingerprinting is a powerful way of studying the causes of climate change. Different influences on climate lead to different patterns seen in climate records. This becomes obvious when scientists probe beyond changes in the average temperature of the planet and look more closely at geographical and temporal patterns of climate change. For example, an increase in the Sun's energy output will lead to a very different pattern of temperature change (across Earth's surface and vertically in the atmosphere) compared to that induced by an increase in CO2 concentration. Observed atmospheric temperature changes show a fingerprint much closer to that of a long-term CO2 increase than to that of a fluctuating Sun alone. Scientists routinely test whether purely natural changes in the Sun, volcanic activity, or internal climate variability could plausibly explain the patterns of change they have observed in many different aspects of the climate system. These analyses have shown that the observed climate changes of the past several decades cannot be explained just by natural factors. EFTA01133132  Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone Sir Paul Nurse President, National Academy of Sciences President, Royal Society HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE CHANGING THE CLIMATE Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities. In order to discern the human influence on climate, scientists must consider many natural variations that affect temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate from local to global scale, on timescales from days to decades and longer. One natural variation is the El Nifio Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an irregular alternation between warming and cooling (lasting about two to seven years) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean that causes significant year-to-year regional and global shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. Volcanic eruptions also alter climate, in part increasing the amount of small (aerosol) particles in the stratosphere that reflect or absorb sunlight, leading to a short-term surface cooling lasting typically about two to three years. Over hundreds of thousands of years, slow, recurring variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun, which alter the distribution of solar energy received by Earth, have been enough to trigger the ice age cycles of the past 800,000 years. Fingerprinting is a powerful way of studying the causes of climate change. Different influences on climate lead to different patterns seen in climate records. This becomes obvious when scientists probe beyond changes in the average temperature of the planet and look more closely at geographical and temporal patterns of climate change. For example, an increase in the Sun's energy output will lead to a very different pattern of temperature change (across Earth's surface and vertically in the atmosphere) compared to that induced by an increase in CO2 concentration. Observed atmospheric temperature changes show a fingerprint much closer to that of a long-term C02 increase than to that of a fluctuating Sun alone. Scientists routinely test whether purely natural changes in the Sun, volcanic activity, or internal climate variability could plausibly exp