EFTA01191481.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.. 08/09/2015 Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2015 09:09:23 +0000 Attachments: Pass_the_salt,_please.it's_good_for_you._=?WINDOWS-1252?Q? =5FMarta_Zaraska=5FHuff_Post=5FMay_4,_2015.docx?=; New_Math_For_Retirees_and_the_4%_Withdrawal_Rule_Paul_Sullivan_NYT_May_8,_20 15.docx; Pm_a_black_ex- cop,_and_this_is_the_real_truth_about_race_and_policing_Redditt_Hudson_VOX_May_28, _2015.docx; Why_do_police_so_often_see_unarmed_black_men_as_threats_German_Lopez_April_10,_ 2015.docx; Map,_The_world_according_to_theislamic_State_Swati_Sharma_TWP_May_29,2015.do cx; Brtmo_Mars_bio.docx; Denmarkjust_generated_140%_of_its_electricity_demand_from_wind_power_Alert_July_ 15,_2015.docx; Fact_Checking_The_Prime_Time_Republican_Presidential_Debate_Fact_Checker_08.07.15 .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(I3).png; image(14).png; image(I5).png; image(16).png; image(17).png; image(I8).png; image(19).png; image(20).png; image(21).png; image(22).png; image(23).png; image(24).png; image(25).png; image(26).png DEAR FRIEND Much Ado About Nothing EFTA01191481 If you are a conservative Republic you probably enjoyed the first Republican debate but if you are not, although you may have felt entertained, you most likely didn't see a statesman on the stage and this includes the earlier "Kids Table" debate of the seven Republicans who didn't make the Top Ten cut. With this I would like to start with a Facebook posting by a Conservative friend Jimmy Bruch before I make my own comments on the obvious set-up by Fox News to bring down Donald Trump and the lack of substance in both the questions and answers given by both the moderators and participants. My take on the debate if I were a Republican: it was a very civil debate even for Trump although I think Trump sunk from the get go about if he will run as a third party and i can't stand him but it was obvious this was a set up to take him down and he crashed and burned. Ben Carson needs to stay a brilliant surgeon...terrible politician. Most were just empty statements... not a harsh criticism but still no substance except Bush and Kasich. Many think Kasich is boring but he is the only one that could narrow the gap across the aisle. Scott Walker not worth mentioning. Ted Cruz way too extreme biblical right and full of doom. Paul too libertarian for the country, his radical changes would be impossible when the house and senate can't work as is. Christie the angriest man on earth...enough said about him. Rubio only on the attack of Obama and Hilary...tired message with no substance. I say Kasich the most level headed and honest. I personally detest the name Bush because of History but Jeb is for sure not his brother or Father and closer to a Reagan than we have seen in years! As a Republican, Kasich would get my vote. Oh I didn't mention that Huck guy! Oh well, he's just plum crazy! Biggest mistake in my opinion was the obvious ambush on Trump. If you feared him going independent before...now you just made him mad. I think it might backfire, he has nothing to lose! Jimmy Bruch — August 6.2015 Although I am a liberal Democrat I watched the first Republican debate last night and agreed with much of Jimmy's assessment. Starting with the first question which was designed to ambush Donald Trump.... to call it a debate is a farce. But the real problem is that no one in the debate was held accountable for what they said, however ridiculous or irrational. Case in point Jeb Bush pointed out that during the eight years he was Governor, there were 1.5 new jobs created in Florida but no one explained that it was due to the housing bubble and that both those job and economic gains were eviscerated by the 2009 recession. EFTA01191482  But let's go to Fact Checker: Summary • The first prime-time Republican presidential debate featured the top ro candidates, according to polling, and they twisted some facts. • Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said that "over 4o percent of small and mid-size banks ... have been wiped out" since the Dodd-Frank law was passed. Actually, the total number of commercial banks has gone down only 16 percent, continuing a longtime trend. • Businessman Donald Trump said his net worth is $10 billion, but outside estimates put the figure much lower. • Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush twice claimed that he cut taxes in the state by $19 billion. But that includes cuts in Florida estate taxes mandated by federal law that Bush had nothing to do with. • Ohio Gov. John Kasich claimed his state's Medicaid program "is growing at one of the lowest rates in the country." Ohio ranks 16th in terms of enrollment growth post-Affordable Care Act among the 3o expansion states and Washington, • Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker claimed his state "more than made up" for the job losses from the recession. That's a stretch. The state has gained 4,000 jobs since the start of the recession. • Rubio said he had never advocated exceptions for rape or incest to abortion bans, but he cosponsored a bill in 2013 that contained just such exceptions. • Boasting about his education initiatives while governor, Bush claimed that the graduation rate "improved by 5o percent." But most of the increase happened after Bush left office; the rate increased about 13 percent when he was governor. • Bush claimed that the U.S. spends more per student than any other country, but Luxembourg, Switzerland and Norway all spend more for primary and secondary education. • Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee repeated the old claim that Obamacare "robbed" Medicare of $700 billion. That's a reduction in the future growth of spending over ro years. For more information/analysis, please find the full Fact Checker summary attached. Marketing the debate as The Donald Thump Show, Fox News enjoyed a rating bonanza, but for me Megyn Kelly, Brett Baier and Chris Wallace as debate moderators were not ready for Prime Time. It was obvious that Fox News had their knives out for Trump and because he didn't wilt, one could say that not only did he survive he may have won. As for Rand Paul an earlier leader in the Republican polls, I think that his days are over. And although Jeb Bush looks more Presidential than most of his rivals his performance was definitely "Bush Lite" especially claiming that if elected the country would have 4% economic growth. Promises, promises... I was definitely entertained by Ben Carson's closing who started by saying that he was the only person on the stage that had separated Siamese twins. But this has little to do as evidence of experience to be President of the United States. As for Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio and Scott Walker, yes they were there but other than going through their talking points they showed little more than they could bluster and promise as well as the next guy. For me the big losers were Mike Huckabee and of course Rand Paul. For me the only candidates who articulated what they might offer as well as held their ground, were John Kasich and surprisingly Chris Christie. But one of the real eye-openers came from Donald Trump who unabashedly explained that yes he gave money to the Clinton and to politicians in both major political parties, so that he could later get favors from them. He even said that he used donations to get Hillary Clinton to go to his wedding — that his giving left her with "no choice." As Andrew Prokop pointed out writing in VOX, It was a bizarre, but effective, diagnosis of the deep corruption in American politics. Reformers tend to present themselves EFTA01191483 as blameless. Trump is presenting himself as someone who has so mastered the corruption of American politics that he can be trusted to resist it. Here's the exchange: Q: You've also supported a host of other liberal policies, you've also donated to several Democratic candidates, Hilary Clinton included, Nancy Pelosi. You explained away those donations saying you did that to get business related favors. And you said recently, quote, when you give, they do whatever the hell you want them to do. TRUMP: You better believe it... I will tell you that our system is broken. I gave to many people. Before this, before two months ago, I was a businessman. I give to everybody. When they call, I give. And you know what? When I need something from them, two years later, three years later, I call them. They are there for me. And that's a broken system. Q: So what did you get from Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi? TRUMP: I'll tell you what. With Hillary Clinton, I said, be at my wedding and she came to my wedding. You know why? She had no choice! Because I gave. And indeed, both Clintons went to Trump's 2005 wedding. The GOP Debates Showed How Fox News Enforces Republican Orthodoxy Fox News is the enforcer of Republican orthodoxy. At Thursday night's GOP debates in Cleveland, moderators Bret Baier, Bill Hemmer, Megyn Kelly, Martha MacCallum and Chris Wallace peppered the party's 17 presidential candidates with tough questions. But several of those questions had one key thing in common: They hit candidates for deviating from Republican orthodoxy. As senior enterprise editor Nick Baumann wrote in The Huffington Post — These are fair questions. But they show the role journalists play in highlighting when one or two candidates profess views that are different from the majority of the field -- and the pressure those candidates face to bring their positions in line with other Republicans. Here are a few examples: Climate Change (Hemmer to Sen. Lindsey Graham) "You worked with Democrats and President Obama when it came to climate change, something you know is extremely unpopular with conservative Republicans. How can they trust you based on that record?' EFTA01191484 Medicaid Expansion (Hemmer to Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal and former New York Gov. George Patald): "You know the saying, right? No Republican wins the White House unless you win here in the Buckeye State. Well, here in the Buckeye State, the governor, John Kasich, took the federal money for Medicaid expansion under Obamacare. And Gov. Jindal of Louisiana, you passed on those tax dollars. Why do you think Gov. Kasich got it wrong here?" Abortion (MacCallum to Pataki): "Gov. Pataki, you're the only pro-choice candidate running. A Republican holding that position has not won a single primary in 35 years. With the recent Planned Parenthood videos that we have all seen shedding new light on abortion practices, I know that you have said that you would defund Planned Parenthood. But has this story changed your heart when it comes to abortion?" Foreign Policy (Baier to Sen. Rand Paul): "Sen. Paul, you recently blamed the rise of ISIS on Republican hawks. You later said that that statement, you could have said it better. But the statement went on, and you said, quote, 'Everything they've talked about in foreign policy, they've been wrong for the last 20 years.' Why are you so quick to blame your own party?" Medicaid Expansion, again (Kelly to Ohio Gov. John Kasich): "Gov. Kasich, you chose to expand Medicaid in your state, unlike several other governors on this stage tonight, and it is already over budget, by some estimates costing taxpayers an additional $1.4 billion in just the first i8 months. You defended your Medicaid expansion by invoking God, saying to skeptics that when they arrive in heaven, Saint Peter isn't going to ask them how small they've kept government, but what they have done for the poor. Why should Republican voters, who generally want to shrink government, believe that you won't use your Saint Peter rationale to expand every government program?' Immigration (Wallace to former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush): "Gov. Bush, you released a new plan this week on illegal immigration focusing on enforcement, which some suggest is your effort to show that you're not soft on that issue. I want to ask you about a statement that you made last year about illegal immigrants. And here's what you said: 'They broke the law, but it's not a felony, it's an act of love. It's an act of commitment to your family.' Do you stand by that statement and do you stand by your support for earned legal status?' The National Security Agency (Kelly to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie): "Gov. Christie, you've said that Sen. Paul's opposition to the NSA's collection of phone records has made the United States weaker and more vulnerable, even going so far as to say that he should be called before Congress to answer for it if we should be hit by another terrorist attack. Do you really believe you can assign blame to Sen. Paul just for opposing the bulk collection of people's phone records in the event of a terrorist attack?" Universal Health Care (Baier to GOP frontrunner Donald Trump): "Fifteen years ago, you called yourself a liberal on health care. You were for a single-payer system, a Canadian-style system. Why were you for that then and why aren't you for it now?" EFTA01191485 Common Core Education Standards (Baier to Bush): "Gov. Bush, you are one of the few people on the stage who advocates for Common Core education standards, reading and math. A lot of people on this stage vigorously oppose federal involvement in education. They say it should all be handled locally. President Obama's secretary of education, Arne Duncan, has said that most of the criticism of Common Core is due to a, quote, 'fringe group of critics.' Do you think that's accurate? As Andrew Breiner wrote in Think Progress: The candidates got away with talking about Iran and ans substance. All agreed the Iran deal was bad, because Obama wasn't tough enough, and that M be tougher, turn down the bad deal, and get a better deal. Former Florida governor Jeb Bush's only proposals for dealing with ISIS in Iraq were to stop the Iran nuclear deal and to "take out ISIS with every tool at our disposal." One of the most common responses to a question about how a candidate would fix a specific problem was to spend the allotted time restating the problem and how serious it is, then state their firm resolve to fix the problem in the vaguest terms possible. Ohio Gov. John Kasich responded to a question about "police and the difficulty in communities," saying "we've got to listen to other people's voices, respect them," with no mention of race, which is the heart of the issue, or any specifics at all. Wisconsin governor Scott Walker also managed to answer a question about the Black Lives Matter movement without making a single mention of the existence of race in America. Kasich laid out a very clear vision for how to combat poverty, and it made no sense. "Economic growth is key," he said (it isn't). He said that balancing budgets and cutting taxes (two objectives that are opposed to each other) would achieve economic growth (nope). Only after all that's accomplished, Kasich said, we can start thinking about people "who don't seem to ever think they get a fair deal," like minorities. He offered no solutions for them besides lip service. Bush was asked what specific policies would bring about four percent growth if he was president, something that he has promised despite the fact that it's considered virtually impossible by economists. His proposal: "Fix a convoluted tax code, you get in and change every aspect of regulations that are job-killers, you get rid of Obamacare and replace it with something that doesn't suppress wages and kill jobs," plus embracing fossil fuels and "fixing" the immigration system. No one who is being honest would say that this plan has any hope of achieving four percent growth. That doesn't seem to affect his argument. As Paddy Chayefsky prognosticated in his brilliant 1976 sartorial movie NETWORK, the debate was more about entertainment and ratings than discovering substance and truth -- news as entertainment is what the debate really was about. And like the recent Mayweather/Pacquiao "Fight of the Century" -- as a real debate, it was a bust. Thank God that it was not on Pay For View because viewers would have felt seriously cheated as well. As for as the earlier debate "The Kids Table" it was obvious why they didn't make the top ten. And although Carly Fiorina (the declared winner) biggest sound bites came for bashing Hillary Clinton and President Obama (neither who were in the room) -- the assertion that she could have done a better job negotiating a deal with Iran, is not only naive it is not rooted in any reality, because the United States was one of six countries (UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) negotiating with Iran and all of the other countries have endorsed this deal. But Democratic National Committee Chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz, speaking Friday on "New Day," responded to Fiorina's attacks on Hillary Clinton in the debate by slamming her record while at EFTA01191486 the helm of HP. "Fiorina's comments are rich comingfrom someone who almost drove a Fortune 500 company into the ground, who wasfired as a result, whose stock dropped by 5096 when she was CEO," she said. "This is a woman who doesn't have the track record of managing a large organization and now she's runningfor President of the United States?" The cure- all prescription/consensus by all of the contestants in both debates was to immediately kill Obamacare, Plan Parenthood, Common Core, cut taxes, get rid of regulations, spend more on the military (even though we already spend more on our military than the combined budgets of the next twelve countries) and that they would be tougher with Iran, China and Russia. Again FOX News, the idea that you are a news organization is a mockery. You act like and are the media arm of the Conservative Wing of the Republican Party. And one of the reasons why you went after Donald Trump in the debate is because he doesn't kowtow to you like most of the other Republican candidates. I totally disagree with Chris Matthews on MSNBC that the moderators did a great job and to my chagrin and for the first time I find myself agreeing with Rush Limbaugh who accused Fox News of going after Donald Trump. But what wasn't discussed at either debates was Climate Change, lack of Social Mobility, the growing Income Inequality, Food Security, the trillion dollar plus mounting Student Debt, Race and the fact that a majority of the Baby Boomers may live in poverty after retiring. If these were real debates why weren't any of these issues mentioned. After looking at both debates on Thursday, I don't think that Hillary and the Democrats have anything to worry about and I look forward to voting for her in November 2016 — because it is extremely easy to claim that you would do a better job than President Obama until you have to face the realities of the real world especially when you refuse to acknowledge that the country is much better off today than it was on January 19, 2009. Gregory Brown The real truth about race and policing from a Black ex-cop Redditt Hudson is a black ex-cop who recently wrote an op-ed in VOX about what he views as the real truth about race and policing. Hudson's friend K.L. Williams, who has trained thousands of officers around the country in use of force says "On any given day, in any police department in the nation, 15 percent of officers will do the right thing no matter what is happening. Fifteen percent of officers will abuse their authority at every opportunity. The remaining 70 percent could go either way depending EFTA01191487 on whom they are working with." Hudson who served as an officer in the St. Louis Police Department whose president of his police academy class sent out an email after President Obama won the 2008 election that included the statement, "I can't believe I live in a countryfull of ni**er lovers/1111m" This is a man who patrolled the streets in black communities in St. Louis in a number of black communities and I am sure that he doesn't see himself as a racist. Subconscious Bias Helps Contribute To The Many Racial Disparities In Law Enforcement As Hudson points out — It is not only white officers who abuse their authority. The effect of institutional racism is such that no matter what color the officer abusing the citizen is, in the vast majority of those cases of abuse that citizen will be black or brown. That is what is allowed. And no matter what an officer has done to a black person, that officer can always cover himself in the running narrative of heroism, risk, and sacrifice that is available to a uniformed police officer by virtue of simply reporting for duty. Cleveland police officer Michael Brelo was recently acquitted of all charges against him in the shooting deaths of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams, both black and unarmed. Thirteen Cleveland police officers fired 137 shots at them. Brelo, having reloaded at some point during the shooting, fi red 49 of the 137 shots. He took his final 15 shots at them after all the other officers stopped firing (122 shots at that point) and, 'fearingfor his life," he jumped onto the hood of the car and shot 15 times through the windshield. About that 15 percent of officers who regularly abuse their power: they exert an outsize influence Not only was this excessive, it was tactically asinine if Brelo believed they were armed and firing. But they weren't armed, and they weren't firing. Judge John O'Donnell acquitted Brelo under the rationale that because he couldn't determine which shots actually killed Russell and Williams, no one is guilty. Let's be clear: this is part of what the Department of Justice means when it describes a "pattern of unconstitutional policing and excessiveforce." Nevertheless, many Americans believe that police officers are generally good, noble heroes. A Gallup poll from last year asked Americans to rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in various fields: police officers ranked in the top five, just above members of the clergy. The profession — the endeavor — is noble. But this myth about the general goodness of cops obscures the truth of what needs to be done to fix the system. It makes it look like all we need to do is hire good people, rather than fix the entire system. Institutional racism runs throughout our criminal justice system. Its presence in police culture, though often flatly denied by the many police apologists that appear in the media now, has been central to the breakdown in police-community relationships for decades in spite of good people doing police work. Here's what Hudson wishes Americans understood about the men and women who serve in their police departments — and what needs to be done to make the system better for everyone. EFTA01191488  1) There are officers who willfully violate the human rights of the people in the communities they serve 2) The bad officers corrupt the departments they work for 3) The mainstream media helps sustain the narrative of heroism that even corrupt officers take refuge in 4) Cameras provide the most objective record of police-citizen encounters available 5) There are officers around the country who want to address institutional racism Why Recording The Police Is So Important omal SUBSCRIBE hianismis BSNEWS wow to Ws re . trooper charged in ooting of unarmed ma VISOR Agile m Agi qbullet hit/owes' hip i t rn e -- A Ho was hospitalued and is now (a-cow:ring "Gt out of the car! Get cut of the car!' (shots fired'. Web Link: https://youtu.be/LvDWrIDrQnw To help erase police abuse as well as protect the integrity of officers Hudson suggest ath every officer in the country should be wearing a body camera that remains activated throughout any interaction they have with the public while on duty. Police officers should not resent this first of all as almost all of the time the video record absolves the officer in question of any wrong doing and secondly there is no reasonable expectation of privacy for officers when they are on duty and in service to the public. Finally citizens should also have the right to record police officers as they carry out their public service, provided that they are at a safe distance, based on the circumstances, and not interfering. Witnessing an interaction does not by itself constitute interference. Police abuse in black and brown communities is generations old. It is nothing new. Racism is woven into the fabric of our nation. At no time in our history has there been a national consensus that everyone should be equally valued in all areas of life. We are rooted in racism in spite of the better efforts of Americans of all races to change that. EFTA01191489  The Racism of the US Justice System in 10 Charts ■ Percent that feel police in their community treat blacks less fairly than whites BLACKS WHITES PA ellUAIKII CtITO Web Link: littps://youtu.be/InOsF5xliZw Most of the racial prejudice Americans harbor today is subtle and manifests itself in stealthier ways than it did in the past. It shows up in how employers view potential hires, how salespeople choose to assist people at high-end stores, or how teachers dole out punishments to misbehaving students. Often subconscious, these race-based evaluations of character or intelligence have wide-ranging effects. Extensive research on the subject shows that everyone carries this subconscious prejudice, known as implicit bias, no matter how well-meaning they might be. In the criminal justice system, this implicit bias may contribute to the many racial disparities in law enforcement. When it comes to police officers, implicit bias is a widespread concern, precisely because of how devastating its effects can be, with trade publications and federal programs taking steps to address it through training and awareness. Because of this legacy of racism, police abuse in black and brown communities is generations old. It is nothing new. It has become more visible to mainstream America largely because of the proliferation of personal recording devices, cellphone cameras, video recorders — they're everywhere. We need police officers. We also need them to be held accountable to the communities they serve. For more information please feel free to download the attached VOX articles — I'm a black ex-cop, and this is the real truth about race and policing — by Redditt Hudson and — Why do police so often see unarmed black men as threats? — by German Lopez. EFTA01191490  No One Wants The Iraq Sequel So why are Republicans so desperate to double-down? CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: You broke it, you bought it. Let's play HARDBALL. Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews out in San Francisco, to give this weekend's commencement at St. Mary's College. Well, even from this beautiful city, it's hard not to see the ugliness in the partisan effort to put the hell of ISIS entirely on the shoulders of President Obama. It's as if the U.S. invasion of Iraq, which broke that country apart, had nothing to do with today's Iraqi turmoil, an invasion Bush and Cheney sold with the now provenly bogus claim that Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons and a connection to 9/11. Watching the Republicans contort themselves in this effort is to watch them prance in front of funhouse mirrors. One group says that reality doesn't matter. It doesn't matter that the claims of a nuclear Iraq or an al Qaeda-connected Iraq were bogus. The U.S. invasion was a dandy idea, they say, even if it's left over 4,000 Americans and over 100,000 Iraqis dead. Another group says now that because the case made for the U.S. invasion was bogus, you can't blame the people who came up with those bogus claims. I know. This is hard to follow. A third group is similar to the first. It says that, OK, we should have never invaded Iraq, but it's still cool because we got rid of Saddam Hussein. Well, the fourth argument -- catch this -- sort of covers all the bases. It doesn't think through the horror of the war or the dishonesty that led to it, it simply lumps it all together and blames it all on, guess who, President Obama? So let's start with those who say we should have gone in, no matter what. Bill Kristol writes in "USA Today" that, quote, "We were right to invade Iraq in 2003 and to remove Saddam Hussein and to complete the job we should havefinished in1991. The Obama administration threw it all away." UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Was the Iraq war a mistake? SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R), SOUTH CAROLINA: No, I don't think so. The biggest mistake we made was leaving Iraq without a follow-on force against sound military advice. EFTA01191491 MICHAEL TOMASICY, DAILY BEAST: Yes, well, look, Saddam Hussein was a really bad guy, Chris. Nobody argues with that. But is the world better off now? No. The world is not better off now. You know, some portions of the Iraqi population are probably better off. The Kurds are probably better off. You know, there's no complete black and complete white here. It's a very complicated picture. So you know, some people are better off because Saddam Hussein is gone. And Saddam Hussein was a total monster, and none of us are going to sit here and defend him. But is the world overall better off because Iraq exploded like this and because they went in there and thought that Iraqis were going to throw rose petals at our feet and they didn't plan for what kind of regime they were going to build, they didn't plan on replacing or maintaining the security constitutions of that country when they tore that country apart? No, the world's not better off. We've got ISIS. We've got all these problems. We've got a much- strengthened Iran because of this invasion. Not better off. ****** MATTHEWS: Let me finish tonight with this: the best thing Hillary Clinton will have going for her next year is common sense. She was smart to condemn the U.S. invasion of Iraq, smart to cut her losses by saying she'd been wrong, pure and simple, in voting to authorize it. Why? Simple. Did you ever see a lousy movie and then hear that they're making a sequel? Would anyone in their right mind pay money to see the sequel if they'd been suckered into seeing the first movie and found it both stupid and dreadful. Nobody is going to buy the neocons in their power (ph) when they take us down another abbit hole. They suckered a lot of Democrats and frankly all the Republicans in 2002 and 2003. Since then, the pols and the smart columnists have been saying people got the message, don't trust this crowd. So let the Bill Kristols and the John Boltons and the Lindsey Grahams blow their bugles and beat their drums. The American people are having been burned once are not about to go touching that same stove again. That's HARDBALL for now. Thanks for being with us. Chris Matthews - HARDBALL - May 21, 2015 ****** CENSUS: MORE MINORITY CHILDREN THAN WHITES, MORE WHITES DYING THAN BEING BORN EFTA01191492 Web Link: ndn.trackingGroup=90085&ndn.stteSection=breitbart nws_us_sty_vmppap&ndn.videold=28683106&freewheel =90085&sitesection=breitbart nws us sty vmppap&vid=28683106 Racial and ethnic minorities' children under the age of five are now the majority as non-Hispanic white children make up an ever-smaller slice of the population, according to the Census Bureau. New population estimates released on June 25, 2015 reveal a striking shift in the composition of America's population as racial and ethnic minority births are also outpacing minority deaths. Meanwhile non- Hispanic whites are experiencing negative population growth, seeing 61,841 more deaths than births between 2013 and 2014. The Census reports that in the past decade, the population has become more diverse, with the percentage of ethnic and racial minorities growing from 32.9 percent to 37.9 percent over the last decade. Indeed, the report notes that Millennia's — now representing more than a quarter of the population, more than the 75.4 million Baby Boomers — are more diverse than earlier generations as 44.2 percent belong to a minority group. With the nation as a whole barreling toward a minority- majority future, there are already states where racial and ethnic minorities actually make up the majority. Specifically there are four states and the District of Columbia: Hawaii (T7.o percent), the District of Columbia (64.2 percent), California (61.5 percent), New Mexico (61.1 percent) and Texas (56.5 percent). There are other states on the precipice of a minority-majority population such as Nevada where 48.9 percent is minority. According to the Census more than 11 percent of the nation's 3,142 counties, or 364, were already majority-minority. This year, the Census noted that five became majority minority between 2013-2014, specifically: Russell, Alabama, Newton, Georgia, Eddy, New Mexico, Brazoria, Texas, and Suffolk city, Virginia. EFTA01191493  •• Projecting Majority-Minority Non -Hispanic Whites May No Longer Comprise Over 50 Percent of the U.S. Population by 2044 Penett Meccry br Op (sow 2014 to 2010 so 2020 cnuno” ''''"" SON of chicken ire rrononties Tout pavutan°^ so 2044 503% of an Ionercans are nonontios 10 0 20)0 2011 2020 1011 2010 1011 2040 204$ 1010 NO By 2020 - 50.2% of the children born in the United States will be non-white. In 2016 nearly 20% of the population will be born to foreigners with the help of more than 64 million new immigrates coming into the country. The Hispanic populations will rise by 14% from 55 million in 2014 to 63.6 million in 2060. While the Asian population will increase more than Hispanics to 22 million. And the number of Baby Boomers will surpass the number of children by 2033. And the whole of the American population will increase to 417 million by 2060, however it is set to decline as immigrants reach higher incomes and fertility rates drop as well. The data comes as a Census report earlier this year projected that by 2044 more than half of the population in the United States would be part of a minority group. ****** It Is About Time EFTA01191494 This week former London City multimillionaire derivatives trader Tom Hayes with UBS and Citigroup was given 14-year sentence for LIBOR rigging. A U.K jury in landmark case found the 35- year-old LIBOR-rigging scandal's 'ringmaster' guilty of eight counts of conspiracy to fix the international interbank lending rate. Hayes — who on Monday became the first person to be convicted on charges of rigging the financial world's key interest rate benchmark, the London Interbank Offered Rate, better known as LIBOR. Hayes, from Fleet, Hampshire, was accused of being the ringleader in a vast conspiracy to fix the London interbank offered rate (LIBOR), a benchmark for $45otn (£29otn) of financial contracts and loans worldwide, between 2006 and 2010. Those are trillions of dollars and pound sterling. Born in west London, Hayes suffered an early family breakup, although his mother remarried. The enlarged family — in which Hayes now has one brother, plus two step and two half siblings — relocated to Winchester in the mid-1990s. The family made an impression there, and a trip to the Hampshire cathedral city would unearth glowing testimonies. "Thefamily is really, really nice," says one resident. "They are hugely into their community and doing good for society. Early on Hayes was identified as a bright student. After excelling at school and gaining a math degree from the University of Nottingham, which also boasts convicted UBS rogue trader Kweku Adoboli among its graduates — he spent time as an intern at UBS before embarking on his City career at the Royal Bank of Scotland and then Royal Bank of Canada. Even then, Hayes admits to being teased for using the same superhero duvet cover he had possessed since he was eight. But the crucial professional move came when he joined UBS in 2006, where he generated $260m (£17om) of profits for the bank in three years. A disgruntled Hayes, who says the bank reneged on a promised $2.5m bonus, defected to Citigroup in 2010, but found cultures could differ between rival investment banks. A colleague quickly alerted Citigroup management to Hayes' methods, and he was sacked after just 10 months' service, albeit while being allowed to keep a £2.2m bonus. Then, on 11 December 2012, came the door knock by investigators from the Serious Fraud Office in the U.K. Motivated by greed and a desire for higher pay, the court heard that Hayes set up a network of brokers and traders that spanned 10 of the world's most powerful financial institutions, cajoling and at times bribing them to help rig rates — designed to reflect the cost of interbank borrowing - for profit. Hayes would then place large bets on financial markets that were sensitive to LIBOR moves. The former trader, who was diagnosed with mild Asperger syndrome just before his trial began, said he was transparent about trying to influence rates and his managers were aware. But a jury of seven men and five women rejected his defense and found him guilty on all eight counts. LIBOR first shot to prominence during the financial crisis when it emerged as a signal that banks were panicking. This is because LIBOR — shorthand for the London interbank offered rate - is the price at which banks estimate their rivals will want to lend to them. During the crisis, those banks that admitted they expected to be charged the highest interest rates by their peers were perceived to be the riskier ones. The £290m fine for rigging the rate imposed on Barclays in 2012 showed LIBOR in an entirely different light. The penalty and subsequent ones imposed on other banks and brokers showed that the rates themselves were being manipulated. It also meant they may not have been a true reflection of wider borrowing costs paid by companies and households worldwide. As well as being a vital measure for banks, LIBOR was used as a benchmark to price a wide range of financial products. Again, we are talking about an estimated $3ootn (£192tn) of contracts are based on LIBOR, setting borrowing rates for businesses and consumers from Sydney to New York and London. EFTA01191495  Following the rigging scandals, the process of calculating LIBOR was overhauled. During the period when the rate was being manipulated, a panel of banks made submissions about the price that they expected to be charged to borrow across 15 timescales — from overnight to one year — and in 10 currencies, including sterling, yen and US dollars. They were asked: "At what rate could you borrow funds, were you to do so by asking for, and then accepting, interbank offers in a reasonable market size just prior to clam?" The British Bankers' Association had been associated with setting LIBOR since 1986 but is now no longer involved in compiling the rates after relinquishing the role last year. In the wake of the rigging scandals, LIBOR is now overseen by the body which runs the New York Stock Exchange. Other changes have also been made. The number of included currencies has been cut to five and the rates published over seven borrowing periods, and publication of the rate is delayed. LIBOR-rigging fines: a timeline • Deutsche Bank has been fined a record $2.5bn for rigging LIBOR - here's a list of other banks fined for rigging LIBOR rates • Barclays was the first bank to be fined in June 2012 when it received penalties of £290m - including a record £59.5m by the UK regulators. Traders were offered bottles of Bollinger champagne and quips of "always happy to help," or you, anything,"or "done ...for you big boy". • The record fine was quickly broken in December 2012 when Swiss bank UBS was fined £940m by regulators in the UK and US and accused of collusion and corrupt brokerage payments. One trader said: "I willfucking do one humongous deal with you ... whatever you want ...Ma man of my word". • In February 2013, the regulators found Royal Bank of Scotland had "abetted" Swiss bank UBS as it levied fines of £390m on the bailed out bank. "MI like a whores' drawers" one trader quipped. • Icap, the City dealer run by former Conservative party treasurer Michael Spencer, was fined £55m in September 2013 and three of its former employees charged with criminal offences in the United States. • Dutch bank Rabobank was fined £660m in October 2013 and its chairman Piet Moerland resigned earlier than planned. "Don't worry mate — there's bigger crooks in the market than us guys!" one of its LIBOR submitters said. • In May 2014 the broker RP Martin had its fine of £3.6m reduced to £630,000 to stop it collapsing. • Lloyds Banking Group was fined £226m in July 2014 when it became the first bank to be censured for deliberately reducing the fees it paid to the Bank of England for emergency funding during the 2008 banking crisis. • In April 2015, Germany's Deutsche Bank was fined a record $2.5bn for rigging LIBOR, ordered to fire seven employees and accused of being obstructive towards regulators in their investigations. The Hayes case is seen as a big test for the Serious Fraud Office and its effectiveness in policing banking fraud. Hayes claimed he was taking part in an "industry-wide" practice. He described the broking market he worked in as the Wild West, a place with no rules and where relationships relied on lavish entertainment. He said it was this high-pressure environment which took its toll on him, prompting him to threaten brokers and pick fights with colleagues to move interest rates to aid his trading. EFTA01191496 Hayes is the first person to stand trial for alleged manipulation of LIBOR. He was arrested in December 2012 and questioned by the Serious Fraud Office. He told SFO investigators that his trades had earned £t5om for UBS in a three year period. He said he originally confessed to misconduct in 2013 after being "frozen withfear" that he would be extradited to America. He said he did not believe he had acted dishonestly with regard to LIBOR and that he wanted to do his job "as perfectly"as he could. US prosecutors wanted to charge Hayes on three counts of conspiracy to fraud, with each one carrying a 20 to 30-year sentence. He subsequently withdrew from a co-operation agreement with the SFO and in December 2013 pleaded not guilty. Undoubtedly many major banks may have been involved, with about a dozen of the biggest names in the world under investigation for rate fixing intended either to pad profits or to make themselves look financially healthier than they were. And although regulators may have glanced the other way. Hopefully civil suits from investors, pension funds government entities and others dependent on LIBOR will eventually cost big banks billions in damages — As this is the only way to change this type of deviant behavior. The fundamental problem, and the weakness is that LIBOR is a hypothetical rate — the rate at which each of the 20 banks on the panel believe they could borrow funds at 11:00 •. It is not a transaction rate, and although it is possible to see what each of the banks has quoted, it is not possible to verify the quoted LIBOR rate contributed by each bank against an actual transaction. It was an honor system and everyone knows that greed will overwhelm honesty when there is little oversight and no real criminal consequences. Going forward, a key question is whether LIBOR should be replaced with another benchmark less susceptible to manipulation. But experts say that LIBOR is so embedded in the world's financial system it would be impossible to eliminate its use overnight. In addition, LIBOR is unique in providing a very wide variety of terms, from overnight to one year. Herring notes that rate setters could ask banks what rates they would be willing to lend at, rather than what they think they could borrow at. "This may reduce the incentivesfor understating rates." Another alternative, he adds, would be to use actual transaction rates, such as those on the Overnight Index Swap Rate, the US Treasury bill rate, or something else. These would be harder to manipulate, but currently do not come in as wide a variety as do LIBOR rates. "Given this [scandal], I think we should be rethinking how all these debt instruments are priced,"says one expert. "Why not price offsomething like the Federal Funds rate, or the interest rate on reserves, or something we knowfor sure is accurate?" Again, if regulators are serious about stopping these types of illegal practices and although over one hundred traders or brokers have been fired or suspended, twenty-one have been charged, and several executives, including former Barclay's CEO Bob Diamond and Rabobank CEO Piet Moerland, have been forced out a