EFTA02716901.pdf

From: Gregory Brown Sent: Sunday, April 12, 2015 7:30 AM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 04/12/2015 Attachments: Untitled attachment 00073.docx; Untitled attachment 00076.docx; Bob Dylan - bio.docx; Untitled attachment 00079.docx DEAR FRIEND Glacial Melting In Antarctica Makes Continent The 'Ground Zero Of Global Climat= Change' In=this Jan. 22, 2015 photo, a zodiac carrying a team of international scientists heads to Chile's station Bernardo O'Higgins, Antarctica. There is an =mportant difference between Climate Change and Weather, and although the Northeast of the United States has experienced the worse snow storms in a century our scientist are telling us that the last thirty years have been the warmest since records began. =Scientist are also telling us that Antarctica is ground zero as warming oceans are causing ice sheets to melt into the surrounding seas — 130 billion tons of ice (118 billion metric tons= per year for the past decade, according to NASA satellite calculations. That's t=e weight of more than 356,000 Empire State Buildings, enough ice melt to fill more than 1.3 million Olympic swimming pools. And the melting is accelerati=g. In the worst case scenario, Antarctica's melt could push sea levels up 10 feet (3 meters) worldwide in a century or two, recurving heavily populated coastlines. As the water warms from below, causing the ice to retreat on to land, and then the warmer air takes over. Temperatures rose 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (3 degrees Celsius) i= the last half century, much faster than Earth's average, said Ricardo Jana, a glaciologist for the Chilean Anta=ctic Institute. Just last month, scientists noticed in satellite imag=s that a giant crack in an ice shelf on the peninsula called Larsen C had grown by a=out 12 miles (20 kilometers) in 2014. Ominously, the split broke through a type=of ice band that usually stops such cracks. If it keeps going, it could =ause the breaking off of a giant iceberg somewhere between the size of Rhode Island and Delaw=re, about 1,700 to 2,500 square miles (4,600 to 6,400 square kilometers), said British Antarctic Survey scientist Pa=l Holland. And there's a small chance it could cause the entire Scotland-sized Larsen C ice shelf to collapse like i=s sister shelf, Larsen B, did in a dramatic way in 2002. A few years ba=k, scientists figured Antarctica as a whole was in balance, neither gaining nor losing ice. =Experts worried more about Greenland; it was easier to get to and more noticeable, but once they got a better look at th= bottom of the world, the focus of their fears shifted. Now scientists in tw= different studies use the words "irreversible" and "unstoppable" to talk about the melting in West Antarctica. Ice is gaining in East Ant=rctica, where the air and water are cooler, but not nearly as much as it is melting to the we=t. EFTA_R1_02158527 EFTA02716901 What's happening is simple physics. Warm wa=er eats away at the ice from underneath. Then more ice is exposed to the water, and it too melts. =inally, the ice above the water collapses into the water and melts. Climate change has shifted the wind pattern around the continent, pushing warmer water far=her north against and below the western ice sheet and the peninsula. The =arm, more northerly water replaces the cooler water that had been there. It's only a couple degrees Fahrenheit=warmer than the water that used to be there, but that makes a huge difference in melting, scientists said. "Before Antarctica was much of a wi=d card," said University of Washington ice scientist Ian Joughin. At its current rate, the rise of the world's ocea=s from Antarctica's ice melt would be barely noticeable, about one-third of a millimeter a year. The oceans are that vast. But if all the West Antarctic ice sheet that's connected to water melts unstoppably, as several experts p=edict, there will not be time to prepare. Scientists estimate it will take a=ywhere from 200 to 1,000 years to melt enough ice to raise seas by 10 feet, maybe only =00 years in a worst case scenario. If that plays out, developed coastal cities such as New York and Guangzhou could fa=e up to $1 trillion a year in flood damage within a few decades and countless other population centers will be vulnerable. "Cha=ging the climate of the Earth or thinning glaciers is fine as long as you don L=;t do it too fast. And right now we are doing it as fast as we can. It's not good," said Rignot, of NA=A. "We have to stop it; or we have to slow it down as best as we can." =br> At the same time the Arctic Sea ic= this year is the smallest in winter since satellite records began in 1979, in a new sign of long-term climate change, U.S. data showed on March 19, 2015. The ice floating =n the Arctic Ocean around the North Pole reached its maximum annual extent of just 14.54 million squa=e km (5.61million sq. miles) on Feb. 25 - slightly bigger than Canada 40=93 and is now expected to shrink with a spring thaw. "This year's maximum ice extent was the lowest in the satellite record, with below-average ice conditions everywhere except in the Labrador Sea and Davis Strait," <=span> Video of shooting and press coverage Web Link: https://youtu.be/1sy3iYpErSU <https://youtu.be/lsy=iYpErSU> =p class="MsoNormal"> If you=are Black you already know it. If you are liberal or progressive=you probably feel that it might happen. And for all of you who still believe that the killings of Tamir Rice, Mic=ael Brown, Kajieme Powell, Trayvon Martin, Ezell Ford, Aiyana Jones and=others were somehow justified because the police officers feared for their lives lets g= to the video tape as they say in sports. This week a video surfaced that showed as police officer Michael Slager shooting an unarmed Black man in the back in South Carolina. What is =ifferent with this story is that the police officer was arrested and charged with murder Tuesday after video sho=ed him fatally shooting a fleeing, unarmed black man in the back. <= class="MsoNormal" style="text-align:center"> <=p> 2 EFTA_R1_02158528 EFTA02716902 =p class="MsoNormal">Above are some of the faces of unarmed people of colo= who were killed by police. Included are seven year old Aiyana Jones, Tamir Rice, 12, Andy Lopez, 1=, DeAunta Farrow, 12 and Rumain Brisbon, 34, an unarmed black father of four who was shot=to death in when a police officer apparently mistook his bottle of pills for a gun. =/span> This latest confrontati=n was last Saturday when 33 year-old Officer Michael T. Slager reportedly pulled over 50 year-old Walter Scott because o= a broken taillight. It escalated into a foot chase as Scott allegedly fled because there were family court-issued warrants for his arrest. Slage= pursued Scott into a grassy lot and claimed that he fired his Taser to subdue him. Moments later, Slager reported on his radio, "Shots fired and th= subject is down. He took my Taser." Earlier this week, an attorney for Slager said the cop felt threatened after Scott tried to overpower him and take his Taser. But images in the video ar= of Stager shooting at Scott as he runs away from him. The video also shows Slager dropping a Taser near Scott after he was gunned dow=. Obviously Officer Slager lied. Thank God there was a passerb= videoing the incident, otherwise most people would have taken Slager's word. Officer=was arrested on Tuesday, April 7, 2015. By the way: Based on the=latest estimates by the U.S. Justice Department, you are SO times likely t= be killed by a police officer than a terrorist in the United States. And for African Americans that number grows exponentially. Something is =/span>defini=ely wrong c=r> No You Didn't Governor Scott? Florida Gov. =ick Scott (R) is a climate change skeptic. =span style="font-size:l2pt;line-height:107%">When I recently read this h=adline while trolling Huffington Post which is part of my daily ritual I had to stop — Florida Offic=als Were Barred From Using The Term 'Climate Change' Once Rick Scott Took Power 41=93 because I was sure that I misread the headline until I actually read Amanda Terkel's a=ticle. I don't know whether it is stubbornness or stupidness or both, but there has to be something in the water =n Florida if the voters and media in the state don't realize that this is a problem. =ecause there is a universal agreement among the international scientific community that there is climate change and that the =span style="font-size:l6px;line- height:17.1200008392334px">man-made release of carbon emissions has made this worse. So what is up with Governor =ick Scott? So why were the officials responsible for making sure Florida is pr=pared to respond to the earth's changing climate are barred from using the terms=i> "global warming" and "climate change" in=official communications, emails and reports, according to new findings from the Flor=da Center for Investigative Reporting? "We were told that we wer= not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact," said Kristina Trott=, a former Florida Department of Environmental Protection employee. Another for=er employee added, "We were dealing with the effects and economic impact of climate change, and yet we can'= reference it." 3 EFTA_R1_02158529 EFTA02716903 Climate change is a major problem for Florida. Las= year, the National Climate Assessment named Miami as one of the cities in the United States most vulnerable to damage from rising sea levels. A Southeast =lorida Regional Climate Compact paper has also warned that water in the area could rise by as much as 2 fee= by the year 2060. But the state's governor, Republican Rick Scott, has frustrated scientists by downplaying the problem= Last year, a reporter asked Scott whether man-made climate change "is significantly affecting the weather, the climate." Sco=t tried to change the subject and replied, "Well, I'm not a scientist." When asked by the Tampa Bay Times in 2010 whether he believed in climate change, Scott simply replied, "No." =/span> In August, five climate scientists met wit= Scott and told him he needs to do more to protect the state from rising sea levels. Acco=ding to the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting, the policy against mentioning global warming went =nto effect after Scott took office in 2011 and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr. a= the agency's director. class="MsoNormal">Christopher Byrd, a counsel with the state Department 4 Environmental Protection, said he first heard about the policy at a staff meeting in 2011. "Deputy General Counsel Larry Morgan was giv=ng us a briefing on what to expect with the new secretary," Byrd recalled, saying he g=ve them "a warning to beware of the words global warming, climate change and sea-level rise, and advised us not=to use those words in particular." "I did infer from this meeting that this was a new policy, that these words we=e to be prohibited for use from official DEP policy-making with our clients," he added. The agency's press secretary told the Florida Center for Investigative Reporting that "DEP does not have a policy on this." The governor's office similarly said, "There I-=;5 no policy on this." This is no longer a debate, whether Mitch McConne=l, John Boehner, Joni Ernst, Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, Paul Ryan, Bobby Arida'. Dan Benishek and Rick Scott disagrees. And although Rep. Dan Benishek from Mich=gan claims to be a scientist and endorses peer review, we then have to ask why =s he still a climate change denier. But again whether or not they agree or not isn't the issue. The i=sue I have is that Governor Rick Scott is so partisan that he instituted a policy that Florida government official= could not even mention the terms "Climate Change" an= "Global Warming." I ask Governor Scott and other government deniers one question.....=i>What if you are wrong..... =/font> MSNBC's Chris Matthews Accuses GOP Of Keeping Jim Crow Alive In 21st Century=/p> <=p> 4 EFTA_R1_02158530 EFTA02716904 Web Link: http:=/www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/chris-matthews-goplim-crow-alive-21st- =entury_n_6863328.html <http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/13/chris-matth=ws-gop-jim-crow-alive-21st- century_n_6863328.htmI> The thought of C=ris Matthews railing against Republicans isn't anything new. But during the final segment of "Hardball&q=ot; on March 12, 2015, the MSNBC host seemed particularly riled=up, accusing the GOP of ushering in a new era of Jim Crow with their treatment of the country's=first black president. Matthews said he believes Americans will see Barack O=ama's time in the White House in "sharper contrast" in years to come, taking into account the antics he&#=9;s had to endure from his conservative foes since taking office. According to Matthew=, the GOP's primary goal has been to make sure the president "accomp=ishes nothing" and "gets booted from office as quickly as possible.=E244 The host pointed to numerous examples of Republican t=mper tantrums, listing Sen. Tom Cotton's (R-Ark.) recent letter to Iran, sub=erting Obama's ongoing nuclear negotiations, and Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) shou=ing "You lie," during the president's 2009 health care speech, among the most egregious. "They will read all this and wonder, '=hat was it that made this Republican opposition so all out contemptuous of an American president?' Matthews said. =E244'What made it treat him as below respect, below the dignity historically accorded his office?' The answer, Matthews suggested (and it's been sug=ested before), stems from President Obama's race. "They will then look at a picture of this president, a picture of this man," Matth=ws said, "and perhaps get the idea that the age of Jim Crow managed to find a new habitat in the early 21st century Republican Party." <=span> In what was supposed to be a post-racial society in t=is new millennium we have to ask ourselves why there is so much hatred against Blacks and Hispanics in White America even when they played by the rules, doing everyt=ing asked of them and reach the office of the President of the United States.</van> 5 EFTA_R1_02158531 EFTA02716905 The Militarization of America's Police Forces <=span> =n the early 1980s police departments across America began militarizing when under the Reagan Administration we saw a mass transfer of military assault rifles, tanks and military gear as a matter of policy under the War On Drugs program. U=der both Presidents Reagan and Bush the government gave surplus army gear to domestic police departments under the auspices of fighting the War On Drugs provide that they use the equipment a= least once in the first year, which all but assured that they did. Th=s was expanded and where we began to see the armed personnel carrier, tanks, helicopters and grenade launchers, all =xplicitly designed to be used on a battle field and now being used on the American streets across the nation against American citizens. The 1033 P=ogram was so popular with Police departments that by 1996 the DOD had given out $330 million in dollars in o=d military gear. Now since our surpluses due to the wars in Afghanistan and l=aq, police departments across American have been given $5 billion in army gear..C2* On top of this as a result of the build up by Homeland Security after 9/11 the government has given local police departme=t an additional $35 billion in surplus military equipment to fight terrorist.=C24, As a result a number of police departments have switch to the battle gear uniforms and rhetoric that they are fighting=a war which is two fundamentally jobs with politicians believing that these s=ill sets are interchangeable. And while swat teams and their tanks are supposed to be used for extreme dangerous situati=ns like hostage takings they are not being use for virtually everything, from crowd-control to low level drug raids. First of a=l we have to acknowledge that police and soldiers play different roles. A =oldier's role is to fight, repel aggression and occupy/control a country through direct violence or the threat of viole=ce, whereas the role of the police is to keep the peace. And although the= both carry guns their roles are almost opposite to each other even though they both sometime have to us= violence to achieve their separate responsibilities. Additionally a s=ldier's role is to carry out orders given to him by his superiors, while one of the main tools of a poli=e officer is his discretion to engage with the people in an endeavor to maint=in order and solve criminal activities. So when the police employ soldier-like ways discretion goes away and they increasing rely on a zero tolerance application of certain rules and laws, =s well as weapons and strategies used in the theater of war, i.e. tasers, guns, assault weapons, p=rsonnel carriers, tanks, helicopters, drones and camouflage. I see no tactica= reason for police officers using camouflage, other than to look cool and give off an aggressive image which ties into the increasing militarizing mentality. Moreover, when=you start dressing for the part it invades your thinking and you begin acting more like a soldier than the police officer that you are. As such we have to reverse this trend of militarizing our police departments, even tho=gh many officers and their superiors see this uniforms, gear and mindset as th=ngs that provide them safety against the dangers of the job. The 6 EFTA_R1_02158532 EFTA02716906 problem =s that all of this stuff looks cool. Consequently there is a new cottage industry that specializes in supp=ying military grade weapons to police departments. VICE 1>=801> March 13, 2015 —To Serve and Protect: VICE on HBO Debrief (Episode 2)=/p> </=pan> Web Link: https://yo=tu.be/t8aZaUgFZss <https://youtu.be/t8aZaUgFZss> The f=tal shooting of Michael Brown in the summer of 2014 sparked a series of protests in Ferg=son, Missouri which quickly spread across the country. The strength of the law enforcement response in Ferguson to these protests set off a fierce debate about the increasing militarization of the American police force. Thomas Mo=ton goes to Ferguson at the height of the protests to get an in-depth look at t=e situation on the ground. He then goes to Urban Shield in Oakland, Californi= and talks to expert Radley Balko to learn how US SWAT teams and police are being trained and how they are getting military grade equipment to police t=eir local communities. Senator Rand Paul discusses the efforts being made in Washington to address this issue, and its underlying causes. Obviously =e have gone too far.... "When we dress police officers as soldiers that are going to act like soldiers." Norm Sta=per (former Chief of Police in Seattle during the WTO Protest in 1999), he is the guy w=o put cops in storm trooper uniforms on American streets in from of the eyes =f the global media, "I screwed up royally. We were totally overwhelmed by numbers and then we did something really, really foolish. We teargased non-threaten, non-violent demonstrators who si=ply wouldn't obey our orders." Remember that soldiers follow or=ers for a living. Police officers are asked to make decisions for a living. And when police officers start acting like soldiers we have a problem and we have American police departments acting like an occupational force. This creates=a cycle of protesters heavy-handed tactics and police react by using those ex=ct same heavy-handed tactics. This has now escalated to where now the cops resemble=an occupying army but civilians have gone past protesting and have begun threatening and attacking individual officers like insurgents under an occupation. This has forced legislators to now take notice. Police are=our neighbors, friends and family who have taken on the responsibly to keep us safe. And in like any organization or society there are some bad apples and=bad policies. But by now it is evident that bigger and bigger vehicles and bigger and bigger weapons and more and more intrusive searches is not working, especially when there is a disproportion=l effect on minority communities. Yet, people wonder why people in Ferguson and New =ork are so mad. Studies say that whites are using illegal drugs at the same rat= as black people. Yet you have a four times greater chance getting arrested for drugs and being shot be the police you have 28 times. Again something is wrong. And it is not only our police departments. It is our judicial system as well. And one way to stop this trend/cycle is by =e-militarizing our police departments and demanding that our police offers explore solutio=s before shooting. As happened on May 2, 2015 when an unarmed mentally ill homeless suspect being subdued by four po=ice officers was fatally shot. Don't they have training for that? =And if four healthy Los Angeles police officer can't subdue a suspect without killing him maybe they shoul= be in another line of work. But what has contributed to this mindset is the militarization of police 7 EFTA_R1_02158533 EFTA02716907 departments in America, where everyone is a potential enemy especially minorities. <=>And this is my rant of the week.... WEEK's READINGS <=iv> Have You Heard the Good News? <=pan style="font-size:8pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serif"> Barbra Streisand recently wrote in The Huffington =ost — Have You Heard the Good News? Presid=nt Obama's Administration, with only opposition from the Republicans, has steadily helped put more than 11 milli=n Americans back to work in the private sector. In the strongest period of American manufacturing job growth since the 1990s, the sector has added mor= than 750,000 jobs since February 2010. As New York Times columnist Pa=l Krugman notes, the economy is "now adding jobs at a rate not seen since the Clinton years." The dollar=is on its fastest rise in 40 years; its value has increased 14 percent in this first quarter alone and it's=the strongest it's been in 12 years compared to the Euro. Maybe most =mportant, the number of long-term unemployed is down by 1.1million. Why are the Republicans so silent about the good news? Shreisand: PBS poi=ted out a study from the "strictly non-partisan National Bureau for Econom=c Research" that shows "under Democratic presidents, per capita GDP has been higher; job creation has bee= stronger; decreases in unemployment have been greater; the S&P 500 stoc= index has been higher; corporate profits have been bigger; and real wages a=d labor productivity have increased." As Brad Plumer also noted in the Washington Post, "Since World War II,=there's been a strikingly consistent pattern in American politics: The economy does much better when a Democrat is in th= White House... the U.S. economy has grown at an average real rate of 4.35 percent under Democratic presidents and just 2.54 percent under Republicans." If one drops the Eisenhower years, it is far worse for the GOP. This pattern holds true under President Obama. =he conservative Wall Street Journal had to admit, "American families have made major progress cutting their debt burdens, putting them in a stronger posit=on to drive spending and growth. Total U.S. household debt was about 107% of disposable income in the fourth quarter, down from 108% in the previous qua=ter and well over 130% before the recession." Under President Ob=ma, the deficit continues to fall even more since being cut in half by 2013 from 20094=A0 In his first term, the president also cut taxes by $3,600 for the average middle-class family. 8 EFTA_R1_02158534 EFTA02716908 The frustration now is the lack of wage increases -- =n obstacle that must be overcome both by raising the minimum wage and our corporations rewarding the increase in productivity among our workers...A0 Of course there's not been an encouraging word from the GOP, which opposes any increase in the federal minimum wage. =ln fact, their 2016 frontrunner, Jeb Bush, does not think there should be a federal minimum wage. The GOP does not care to understand the late Senator =aul Wellstone's maxim, "We all do better when we all do better.&=uot; Increasing wages means more economic demand for more goods and services, and boosts the economy. Somehow, Republi=ans remain intent on cutting taxes for the already rich and devastating domestic spending. The House once again just proposed the "Ryan&=uot; budget full of unexplained and mysterious trillions of dollars in savings while cutting revenue, savaging domestic spending and proposing vouchers to purchase insurance instead of traditiona= Medicare. As Krugman writes, if it "were to become law, it would leave the federal government several trillion dolla=s deeper in debt than claimed, and that's just in the first decade."=/i> With the budget deficit radically dropping under President Obama and the increasingly better jobs reports, why would we believe these GOP austerity measures would help average families? We don't because they won't. Krugman again: "The simplest way to understand [the GOP budget proposals] is surely to suppose that they are intended to do wha= they would, in fact, actually do: make the rich richer and ordinary familie= poorer." They're also intent on misrepresenting the econom=c facts of the Affordable Care Act. Thanks to the ACA, 16.4 million previously uninsu=ed adults now have health care coverage under the ACA. The Brookings Ins=itution pointed out in March that "more than 4.2 million households, or 7.5 million people, are lik=ly to qualify for both the [Earned Income Tax Credit] and [ACA's] premium =ax credit" - - this in addition to improved, comprehensive health care coverage. Over the next 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office projected=the ACA will actually cost $109 billion less than previously anticipated. =And last year, the LA Times reported, "Insurance premiums are lower than anticipated, the Affordable Care Ac= will cost S9 billion less than previously estimated and the provision desig=ed to buffer insurance companies from risk will actually raise revenue, not function as any sort of federal government bailout." The Republican response to how the ACA is helping Ame=icans and heath care costs is to try to repeal it (56 times as of February) and attempt to hobble it with litigation. GOP presidential candidate, Senator Ted Cruz, who this week vowed to "r=peal every word of Obamacare," hypocritically receives health insurance for his family through the Federal="Obamacare" exchange. Are Republicans who control b=th houses of Congress interested in governing or will they remain stuck in their ideolog=cal corner? Their current approval rating of 11% does not seem to faze them, so the signs are not encouraging. In =n unprecedented move, 47 Senate Republicans just signed a letter deliberately undermining both our Presiden= and important allies' in the negotiation to halt nuclear arms prolifera=ion by Iran. So it looks like the facts be damned, the GOP has decided that the ideological corner is where they will remain. The voters will have a chance next year to change this. The reality is that under the Obama Administratio= the country's economy has blossomed immeasurably without inflation. Jobs have come =ack in almost every sector and although still depressed, for the first time in years wages are 9 EFTA_R1_02158535 EFTA02716909 growing=for the middle-class and poor. But what we need is more stimulus in the form of investment into the country's =ging infrastructure which would create millions of domestic employment as well a= having a multiplier effect in generating additional economic growth. =C2*So I ask my Republican friends, please give the President some kudos because his policies have and are working. More important, please drop the idea that cutting taxes on the rich generate job=, when thirty years of supply-side economics has shown this isn't true. And finally=let's get behind a bipartisan economic agenda to create even more jobs through investing in infrastructur= because as Paul Wellstone use to say, "We all do better when we all do better." =div style="text-align:center"><=>**•••• The Business of College Sports in America =span style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serif"><=mg src="cid:ii_14c1e71c3fd584e5" alt="Inline image 1" width="472" he=ght="338"> As we know sports in America is a business, whether i= be pro sports or amateur sports. And nowhere is it a business than in colleges where certain sports are a huge business.40=A0 The NCAA's annual men's basketball tournament, better known as March Madness, is both a great athletic contest and a crassly commercial enterprise —=a dichotomy common to college sports that has led to legal and ethical questions about =hether student athletes should be paid and organized like professional employees o= their universities. Even aside from the confused status of student athletes= college sports is burdened with myths. Here are five of the most common one=. Murray A. Sperber who teaches in the Cultural Studies of Sport in Education program in the University of California at Berkeley's Graduate School of Education and is the author of four b=oks on college sports wrote an interesting article last month in The Washington=Post — Five myths about college sports — is an attempt to a=dress some of the fuzziness. 1. College sports provide enormous profits for schools. College athletic= generate eye-popping sums of money. The NCAA sold 14 years of N rights to its March tournament for $10.8 billion in 201=, and athletic programs routinely generate more than $20 million per year for=a school in ticket sales. In 2013, the University of Texas athletic departmen= pulled in $165.7 million. It's logical to think that the universiti=s' non-athletic programs benefit from all that money. Even the Chronicle of Hi=her Education has made the connection, writing that "there is no revenu= in training doctors and lawyers, [but] colleges and universities make a substantial, direct and immediate income from their student athletes.4>=9D In fact, most sc=ools lose money on their sports operations, as the NCAA confirms in its financial reports. Extravagant compensation for athletic department employees, especially coaches, as well as waste and mismanagement leave many programs in the red. In 2009, Duke's highl= successful men's basketball team lost $2 million , Florida Atlantic University=had a profit margin of minus 253.7 percent, and Louisiana Tech posted one of minu= 306.9 percent. Schools including Rice, Tulane and Colorado State all lost m=re than $1 million on their men's basketball programs that year. 10 EFTA_R1_02158536 EFTA02716910 When = sport does turn a profit, that money is far more likely to stay in the athletic department, subsidizing other sports, than to fund academic programs. 2. Title IX has allowed women to participate equally in college sports. In many ways, Ti=le IX, the law prohibiting gender-based discrimination in schools, has succeeded. When it was implemented in 1972, =ust 16,000 women played college sports; today the number is more than 200,000.<=span> But in one glari=g way, the law's passage has seen equality for women in sports decrease: coaching. As of 2012, only 43 percent of wome='s college teams were led by women, down from more than 90 percent in 1972, th= year two former professors began tracking the numbers. Title IX created hig=er salaries for the coaches of women's programs — and the bett=r pay ended up attracting men to those positions. Judy Sweet, the first woman to be presid=nt of the NCAA, has said she doesn't expect the downward trend to stop= "It requires breaking this cycle of male university presidents hiring male boar= members hiring male athletic directors hiring male coaches."./p> And even the pre=ence of men has not led to pay parity for the coaches of women's programs. The average salary for a coach of an N=AA Division I men's team was $267,007 in 2010. Coaches of women's teams=on average earned $98,106. 3. Multimillion-dollar coaching salaries help teams win. The University o= Michigan has high hopes for head football coach Jim Harbaugh. The school lured him from the San Francisco 49ers by matching his NFL salary — $5 million a year — and adding a =2 million signing bonus and performance incentives. The Wolverines expect that he'll =elp them win the Big Ten and take them to the College Football Playoff. The previous coach, Brady Hoke (who was making $2.8 million per year), was fired in Dece=ber after the team finished with a losing record. That happens all the time in college sports: Losing c=aches are dumped and replaced with more expensive ones. "Schools justify =hese salaries on the grounds that it's a competitive marketplace, that t=ey have to pay to get a good coach," says Andrew Zimbalist, an economist with = focus on sports. 11 EFTA_R1_02158537 EFTA02716911 But the coaching=arms race doesn't pay off. New hires often produce poorer records than the coaches they replace — in short, th=y are paid more for losing more games. A 2012 study following the highest-paid footbal= and men's basketball coaches over six seasons showed that replacing=a coach with a higher-compensated one resulted mostly in no short- term change Q=80+ most of the teams that were not ranked in the top 25 did not climb into that echelo= with the new coach. In fact, 20 percent of the new hires triggered 40=9Cshort-term downward mobility," meaning their teams fell in ranking, sometimes =ropping out of the top 25 altogether. In the longer term, over four seasons, the number= were comparable. 4. Sports =enerate great publicity for schools. Countless public=tions and entire TV networks cover college sports, and schools pay nothing for those sweeping shots of campus broadcas= during big games. Applications tend to spike for schools appearing in the N=AA men's basketball tournament. "We couldn't afford to=buy the kind of exposure our team earned," Butler athletic director Barry Collier said of th= school's surprise success in the 2010 tournament. George Mason University estimated =hat its 2006 tournament run won it $677 million worth of free publicity.=/p> But when scandal= occur on or off the field, the media does not disappear — in fact, more reporters arrive on campus — =nd the bad PR costs schools dearly. After enjoying years of good press for its athletics, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill is now being roiled by a massiv= academic fraud scandal in its athletic program. At least one top recruit to=the men's basketball team says the scandal has made him hesitate about =ommitting to UNC, and the university made the unprecedented move of hiring a vice chancellor for communications and public affairs — a former spokesm=n for Disney — at the cost of $300,000 a year. That sum pales next to the=$3.2 million Penn State had spent as of 2012 on investigations, PR and legal adv=ce as a result of its child sex abuse scandal. This does not include the $60 million fine levied by the NCAA. 5. College=sports bring in alumni donations. College presiden=s and school officials frequently explain their obeisance to their athletic departments by saying that without big-ti=e sports programs, they'd never get any money out of their alumni. As=Texas Tech athletic director Kirby Hocutt told the Wall Street Journal, "Nothi=g can unify a community and alumni base of a university like college football can4=8* 12 EFTA_R1_02158538 EFTA02716912 While some studies have shown that winning can have a=positive effect on alumni giving, others have shown no correlation or even that a winning record can decrease donations. A more general examination of alumni showed that the economy and news stories about an alma mater most strongly influence giving among young alumni; athletic performance ranked lowest, al=ng with diversity initiatives. The U.S. News & World Report annual college rankings for schools with the highest percentage of alumni who give are fil=ed with schools that do not play big-time football or basketball. Small libera= arts colleges, almost all in Division III, post the best numbers. 5 Things to Know About ISIS and the Theology of Evil =span style="font-size:12pt;line-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serif"><=mg src="cid:ii_14bcd9fbe60da70b" alt="Inline image 1" width="347" he=ght="253"> Without a doubt ISIS is evil. Evil is a term we don&K=9;t normally hear in the media or politics, which is likely a good thing given our lack =f public morality and civility these days. Indeed, judgmentalism was condemne= by Jesus but is still often practiced by many churches -- so humility is alway= called for. But it is still a responsibility of the faith community t= name evil where it clearly exists in the world. And by any standards, the =ctions of ISIS are evil. The latest report issued by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, "The Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict in Iraq," catalogues the human rights atrocities committed by ISIS, making it abundantly clear that this group is evil. They include: attacks dire=tly targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure, executions and oth=r targeted killings of civilians, abductions, rape and other forms of sexual and gender based violence perpetrated against women and children,=/span> slavery and trafficking of women and children, forced recruitment of children, destruction or desecration of places of religious or cultural significance, wanton dest=uction and looting of property, and denial of fundamental freedoms. The report goes on to identify the targeting of ethni= and religious groups -- such as Christians, Yazidis, Shiite Muslims, and m=ny others -- and subjecting them to "gross human rights abuses, in what appears as a deliberate policy aimed at destroying, suppressing or expelling these communities permanently from are=s under their control." The report describes the actions as possible "war crimes, crimes against humanity, and possibly genocide."4«=A0 The reality is that evil can be overcome even when the individuals involved in the evil practices cannot be redeemed= But it is important to remember that to overcome evil it is helpful to first what not to do. 13 EFTA_R1_02158539 EFTA02716913 Bill O'Reilly, Fox News' top•rated political =undit and talk show host, has devoted a great deal of attention to ISIS's atrocities a=d what he believes the West's response should be. Unfortunately, while O=#39;Reilly rightly condemns ISIS as evil, he frames the conflict as a "holy war" that ISIS is waging against the West, Christians, and anyone =Ise who does not share ISIS's extreme views. O'Reilly defined his="talking points" as "Judeo/Christian philosophy versus the Jihad." According to O'Reilly, =quot;this is now a so-called holy war between radical jihadists and everybody else including peaceful Muslims. ... The holy war is here. And unfortunately it seems the president of United States will be the last one =o acknowledge it." While it's a common Fox practice to turn ever=thing into a partisan issue against President Obama, O'Reilly is also spreadi=g a very dangerous theology. O'Reilly has=also said that it is "appropriate to define the worldwide conflict between Muslim fanatics and nearly everybody else. <=>" They "want to kill us," he says. "And there are millions of them -- period."= So O'Reilly has urged congregations to act, saying, "Americans of faith and goodwill must demand our federal government begin to take the holy war seriously," because, he says, America is the only country that has=the power to lead this fight. Here is the prob=em. The idea of a "holy war" is indeed what ISIS most wan=s. It's what ISIS is clamoring for and is deliberately trying to provoke with their sadistic and brutal cruelty.40=A0 Their highly publicized barbarity is an attempt to provoke a "holy war" with us as their primary enemy, which would give credence to their comp=ete perversion of the religion they claim -- a fundamentalist and apocalyptic interpretation of Islam. ISIS would like to be seen as the sole defender of true Islam in an existential battle agai=st people of other faiths and other Muslims who do not share their extreme beliefs. Dignifying them by accepting their language of holy war only helps legitimize ISIS and makes it easier for them to recruit more followers. Former National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski =ade some excellent points in a recent discussion on MSNBC's Morning Joe:<=p> The worst thing we can=do is to become the sole combatant against the forces of evil that are operating in =hat region. We have to avoid any direct collision with the world of Islam, we mustn't label the enemy as Islamist, but we must work with those govern=ents in the region that are prepared to defend themselves.... The key point I have=in mind is that strategically we are not the chief protagonist in the region, because if we are, we become the inheritor of the colonial era, and we even become more hated in the region than is the case today. He also said tha= we should help those in the region who are prepared to deal with the problem, "and also in extreme circumstances to take care of those who kill our people, bu= beyond that I think we ought to abstain." Only when we 14 EFTA_R1_02158540 EFTA02716914 learn from past mistakes will we find better direction. And because the ISIS crisis has to do with the relationship between religio=, politics, and violence, our response must have a religious component as wel=. Here is what we must keep in mind: 1. The=e are no "holy wars." War is always the resu=t of a failure to resolve human conflicts without violence. War is a consequence of our=sins. Even when theology is used to justify the use of force, or "just war," <=i>it is still a failed response. There is no glory or righteousness in war. And those who argue for the use of force should be repentant and humble when they do =o. Since Bill O'Reilly is asking us to press our American government to fight against a "holy war" - - we should reach back to O'Reilly to help him understan= why this rhetoric is so wrong and dangerous. 2. We must admit that our primarily military response to terrorism since 9/11has=not worked; it has made things worse. The world and our lives a=e less secure now because of previously failed military responses. In particular, the war in Iraq, based on false pretenses and carried out in wrong ways, is a primary cause of ISIS. The Iraq war destabilized that country and the region, refue=ed the Sunni/Shia sectarian conflict (just as many people in the international religious community warned), and revealed American practices and policies l=ke torture and supporting oppressive regimes -- all of which have accelerated =eep grievances that are at the core of the ISIS ideology. We cannot just keep d=ing what has failed. Protecting people from murderous assaults is a legitimate and necessary task that will require a serious strategy. But a primarily American military strategy cannot defeat ISIS, and even if an overwhelming American force were to enter Iraq and Syria to destroy the present ISIS arm=, they or something like them would rise up again. American forces perm=nently occupying the Middle East is not a sustainable strategy for peace but a formula for endle=s worldwide terrorism. 3. Onl= new political and economic solutions in the Middle East will finally transf=rm the current state of affairs. While some, including Fox New= hosts like O'Reilly, continually disparage "political solutions," it is an obvious piece of the puzzle. A lasting soluti=n will require the often-divided Middle East states themselves to take responsibility for their own region and for their own failures of governanc= -- together. The United States must only assist them if they take responsibili=y for reasonable governance. We must be honest that the injustice and corruption of autocratic states in Muslim countries is a direct cause of ISIS, and our uncritical support for these governments must change. Beheadings in Saudi Arabia must be opposed as much as ISIS beheadings. Our Saudi hy=ocrisies, along with other Arab regimes, exist because of our thirst and addiction to oil and are part of w=at leads to an ISIS. Theologically, sin does beget sin, and accountability is necessary to a more peaceful future. 4. Fundamentalism, in all our faith traditions, is a politicized use of religi=n based on fear and power, and it is best defeated from the inside, not the outside. Fundamentalism cannot be bombed away from without, which just gives them new recruits. Reli=ious fundamentalism is best defeated from within its own tradition. A global alliance between as many leaders and communities as possible, must be built to support responsible and courageous Muslim leaders whose teaching and practice must ultimately undermine the le=hal ISIS fundamentalism. 15 EFTA_R1_02158541 EFTA02716915 5. Understanding and addressing the roots of terror to build a strategy to def=at it does not dismiss terror's evil, barbaric behavior. Whateve= ISIS'S beliefs may be, and whatever grievances they might have against =he Iraqi and Syrian governments, the West, and others, evil is never justified= But it's also true that terrorism is always built on grievances - - real and perceived -- that are u