EFTA00635610.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.. 02/05/2017 Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2017 10:13:05 +0000 Attachments: GRIFFITH_PARK_TURNS_120_THIS_YEAR,HERE'S_WHY_IT'S_LA'S_MOST_IMPO RTANT_PARK_Thrillist_01.17.17.docx; Serge_Gainsbourg_bio2.docx Inline-Images: image.png; image(I).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(I4).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 DEAR FRIEND Going Vegan Inline image 1 If you are like me you probably have more and more friends who are vegan, as there is an estimated 6 million Americans are vegans, which is typically considered to be a healthy choice. "Going vegan," or cutting out all animal products (including meat, fish, poultry, dairy and eggs) from the diet, has become an increasingly popular choice over the past several decades for both health and ethical reasons. If done right, a vegan diet can be nutritious, delicious and healthy — it can significantly lower cholesterol, reduce diabetes and obesity risk, and even reduce the risk of death from a heart attack by about 25%. However, there are drawbacks to strict veganism that need careful consideration. EFTA00635610 While I would never argue with anyone who decides to be a vegan for philosophical, spiritual or ethical reasons, nutritionist suggest that it's important to consider and address the risks if you're jumping into veganism for its purported health benefits alone. Surveys show ethical considerations are the primary reason people convert to vegetarianism or veganism. But veganism is not the only ethical diet. More importantly, ifs not a historically validated diet. A majority of Americans eat a meat-based American-style diet, including bacon and hamburgers. Veganism was largely unheard of in the U.S. until the late 197os / early 1980s. Interestingly enough, there doesn't appear to be a single cultural group in the history of the world who actually survived long-term on an exclusively plant-based diet. So from a health perspective, there's very little historical support for the strict veganism idealized today. It's really important that we distinguish between vegetarianism and veganism. Vegetarianism has a very long and honorable history. It goes back at least 2,5oo years to Greece, and much further than that in the Indus Valley, India, and that part of the world. It has proven itself to be a viable diet ... [Yet even] in the Northern parts of India, the Kashmir regions, they eat meat because the climate is so different in the mountainous regions of North India. Vegetarianism has a very long and noble history with verified health results. However, veganism ... is a non-historical diet ... Its health benefits are not verified. There were scattered enclaves of religious people that lived cloistered lives who probably did follow a vegan diet ... but these were very, very tiny populations, and we have no idea if they were healthy and how long they lived." From a historical perspective, veganism is a very recent development. The roots of veganism go back to England, when in 1944, Donald Watson coined the term "vegan." Watson's primary argument for veganism was one of ethics. At the age of 14, M witnessed the slaughter of a pig, which left him horrified. Immediately, he decided to stop eating meat and wanted the whole world to follow suit, despite having no training in nutrition. Veganism is based on ideology, not human physiology, Kahn reminds us in her book, which also delves into human evolution. Part of the confusion is that many vegans appear quite healthy in the earlier stages. This isn't so surprising when you consider the fact that many switch from processed foods to a mostly raw plant- based diet. The influx of live foods will undoubtedly improve your health. However, in the long term, the absence of all animal-based foods can take a toll, as certain nutrients cannot be obtained from the plant kingdom. Carnosine, carnitine, taurine, retinol, vitamin D3, conjugated linoleic acid and long- chained omega-3 fats are examples. B12 deficiency is also very common among vegans. After six or seven years, the Bn stored in your liver will be completely exhausted, at which point you may start to experience serious neurodegenerative diseases. There are many documented cases of blindness from B12 deficiency, as well as other neurological disorders. Vegetarianism typically allows both dairy and eggs. Back in Pythagoras' days, early Western vegetarians also ate fish. (Today, this "branch" of vegetarianism is sometimes separated out and referred to as pescetarianism.) EFTA00635611 Most nutritionist believe that seafood is one of the healthiest foods on the planet, primarily because of its docosahexaenoic acid (DHA) content — a 22-carbon omega-3 fat that is absolutely essential for your health, as it's a structural component of your cell membranes. If you have low DHA levels, it's almost physiologically impossible to be healthy because it's such an important part of energy generation at the molecular level. You need DHA, which is only found in fatty fish and certain other marine animals like krill. Like it or not, most scientist say that you need Marine-Based DHA and that if you exclude these foods, you're just not going to be healthy. And contrary to popular belief, you simply cannot obtain all the DHA you need from plant sources. Plant-based omega-3 (alpha-linolenic add or ALA) has 18 carbons whereas marine-based omega-3s (DHA and eicosapentaenoic acid or EPA) have 22 and 20 respectively. The difference in the length of the carbon chain makes a significant difference in terms of functionality. ALA functions as a source of fuel (food), whereas EPA and DHA are structural elements. More than 90 percent of the omega-3 fat found in your brain tissue is DHA, which suggests how important it is for healthy neurological function, for example. The problem is that, although your body can convert some of the ALA found in plants to the DHA found in marine oils, it is very rare for it to be more than 5 percent — the typical conversion rate is 1 to 3 percent, or even less. This simply isn't enough to have any significant benefit. So scientist say that you shouldn't make the mistake of thinking you can forgo marine-sourced DHA for a plant-based ALA found in flaxseed, flaxseed oil, chia seeds, walnuts and leafy greens. I think one of the reasons why vegetarians — at least those who follow Pythagoras' model, which includes fish — seem so healthy is because this diet is lower in protein than the conventional meat- based diet. When you eat excessive protein, you stimulate powerful biochemical pathways that trigger disease. This, combined with the fact that fish provides critical omega-3 and other healthy fats and cofactors, makes a strong case for the "pescetarian" form of vegetarianism. Eating plenty of fish should help you with energy as well as helping you sleep better. DHA is really a problem with vegans ... In fact, two of the founders of veganism, as they became older, suffered from Parkinson's disease. They had their DHA tested and it was zero ... "I eat sardines every other day. The rush of powerful and sustained energy I get from them I cannot find anywhere in the plant world," said one nutrition expert. While keeping your protein low is a wise move, excessively low protein can become a problem for vegans — especially if your diet is also low in healthy fats. Some will get just eight to 12 percent protein from plants in their daily diet, which can trigger muscle wasting. Low fat is another, and a more concerning problem, among vegans. When you eat a high net carb diet (total carbs minus fiber), you're essentially burning carbohydrates as your primary fuel. If you shift down to relatively low levels of net carbs, which is easy to do on a vegetarian diet since vegetables are so high in fiber, then your body starts burning fat as its primary fuel. This means you need to increase the amount of healthy fats in your diet in order to satisfy your body's fuel demands. Sufficient dietary fat is also essential for maintaining healthy hormone levels, this same expert notes, including your sex hormones. Raw veganism in particular is associated with loss of menses (amenorrhea), due to low calorie and fat intake, increasing your risk for infertility and osteoporosis. EFTA00635612 Low fat is likely far more troublesome than low protein, because once you start burning fat for fuel, powerful protein-sparing processes start taking place, allowing you to get by with as little as 6 to 8 percent protein without risking muscle wasting. The health problems associated with veganism create a high dropout rate. It's difficult to find good statistics on this, as people don't want to discuss it. Many are ashamed, feeling they've somehow 'failed," and many are shamed by their fellow vegans, who believe they're making a huge mistake to go back to eating animal foods. It is estimated that more than 5o% of vegans drop out because of declining strength and deteriorating health. What many moral vegans fail to integrate into their overall evaluation is that even the consumption of an exclusively plant-based diet involves killing a wide variety of animals. Not intentionally, of course, but rather as an artifact of the process of growing the food. Essentially, there's no animal-free lunch. There's going to be some type of destruction of life involved. Then there's the issue of plant consciousness as well. Unless you're growing all your food by yourself in a no-till organic setting using hand tools, animals are destroyed in industrial agriculture. Studies by reputable scientists show up to 70 percent of rodents and small animals present in industrial growing fields end up being killed by the machinery. Animals are also killed in traps, and during food storage and transportation. Much of the same can be said for fish, who are often viewed as not having consciousness. But new testing is showing that perhaps they do; perhaps they can feel pain ... The same with plants ... Brilliant botanists believe that plants have elevated intelligence that we can't even begin to understand, because we don't speak the same "language." They know for sure that plants absolutely know when they are being eaten. IN not opposed to vegetarianism. And like most nutritionist, I suggest that one should eat a balanced diet that includes a minimum small amounts of animal protein; mostly fish and occasionally some organic grass-fed meat or free-range pastured chicken. But meats should not a cornerstone staple in any diet, and as such I believe most people could benefit from lowering their meat consumption. It shouldn't be entirely excluded, however, because animal foods do contain very valuable nutrients your body needs for optimal health. Organic pastured eggs are another source of incredibly healthy nutrients. Ditto for raw butter. Should you decide to go vegan, I am told that you start off slowly — as going vegan suddenly can be a big adjustment for your body. Try starting your transition by being a part-time vegan — eat vegan until 6 PM and then finish your day off with moderate servings of fish, eggs and dairy. Continue this pattern for about a month before you cut out all animal products. And remember Animal products are usually our main dietary source of vitamin B12, an essential vitamin that our bodies need to keep our nerve and blood cells healthy. Vegans are at increased risk of a vitamin B12 deficiency, which can cause anemia and neurological problems including uneven gait, numbness or tingling in the extremities, mood problems, dementia and decreased concentration. To maintain healthy vitamin B12 levels, vegans should take a 25 microgram vitamin-B12 supplement once a day. Always talk to your doctor before starting a new supplement. EFTA00635613 Whatever you do (vegan, vegetarian or not) try to stay away from pre-packaged organic foods and definitely limit as much as possible processed foods as they are one of the main reasons why people all over the world are getting fat and sick... as they are often loaded with sugar, high fructose corn syrup, salt and all sorts of artificial ingredients that, with many of the ingredients that aren't actually food and extremely low in essential nutrients compared to whole, unprocessed foods. ****** So True Inline image I ****** What You Eat Can Kill You Court Rules Against Monsanto, Allows California To Put Cancer Warning On Roundup EFTA00635614  Inline image 1 Web Link: eSection=91297 pp&videold=31907765 and killer-can-be-labeled-with-cancer-warning/ In 2015 an international committee of cancer experts shocked the agribusiness world when it announced that two widely used pesticides are "probably carcinogenic to humans." The well- respected International Agency for Research on Cancer published a brief explanation of its conclusions in The Lancet and issued a book-length version later in the year. The announcement set off a wave of feverish reaction, because one of these chemicals, glyphosate, is a pillar of large-scale farming. Better known by its trade name, Roundup, glyphosate is the most popular weed killer in the world it is used by every day gardeners and farmers alike. Farmers like it because many crops, including corn, soybeans and cotton, have been genetically modified to tolerate the chemical. Farmers can spray it across entire fields, killing weeds while their crops survive. Critics take issue with Roundup's main ingredient, glyphosate, which has no color or smell. Monsanto introduced it in 1974 as an effective way of killing weeds while leaving crops and plants intact. It's sold in more than 160 countries, and farmers in California use it on 25o types of crops. The chemical is not restricted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which says it has "low toxicity" and recommends people avoid entering a field for 12 hours after it has been a But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a Lyon, France-based branch of the M. World Health Organization, classified the chemical as a "probable human carcinogen." Shortly afterward, the most populated U.S. state took its first step in 2015 to require the warning labels. Monsanto, the company that invented both glyphosate and "Roundup Ready" crops which generated more than $36 billion in sales, was indignant, calling the IARC's assessment "junk science." Monsanto's chief technology officer, Robb Fraley, said in a statement that "this result was reached by selective 'cherry picking' of data and is a clear example of agenda-driven bias." Fraley pointed out that the IARC assessment did not result from any new scientific data, and that regulatory authorities in many countries have repeatedly evaluated these studies and concluded that glyphosate is safe. Until then, glyphosate had been widely considered among the safest pesticides. Compared to other agricultural chemicals, it was claimed to cause little harm to birds, fish and mammals, and it breaks down relatively quickly in the environment. Opponents of genetic engineering, meanwhile, greeted the EFTA00635615 announcement as long-awaited vindication of their skepticism regarding GMOs. In a statement, Gary Hirshberg, chairman of the Just Label It campaign, said that "our worst fears are now confirmed," and argued that it confirmed the need for GMO labeling. Opponents say that mounting evidence suggests that exposure to Monsanto's Roundup weed killer increases the risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma, a blood cancer that starts in cells called lymphocytes, which are part of the body's immune system. According to the Leukemia and Lymphoma Society, there is a higher reported incidence of non-Hodgkin lymphoma in farming communities. And that a number of studies (including those listed above) have suggested that specific ingredients in herbicides and pesticides are linked to lymphoma. Concurrently, a number of farmers and others working in agriculture have filed lawsuits against Monsanto, the manufacturers of Roundup, claiming their non-Hodgkin lymphoma was caused by occupational exposure to Roundup [glyphosate]. As of today, Roundup is banned in more than 38 countries with dozens of other countries considering banning it as well. On January 27, 2017 a California judge ruled that Roundup weed killer could be labeled with a cancer warning. Attorneys for California consider the International Agency for Research on Cancer the "gold standard" for identifying carcinogens, and they rely on its findings along with several states, the federal government and other countries, court papers say. Fresno County Superior Court Judge Kristi ICapetan still must issue a formal decision, which she said would come soon. California regulators are waiting for the formal ruling before moving forward with the warnings, said Sam Delson, a spokesman for the state Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. Once a chemical is added to a list of probable carcinogens, the manufacturer has a year before it must attach the label, he said. Teri McCall believes a warning would have saved her husband, Jack, who toted a backpack of Roundup for more than 3o years to spray weeds on their 20-acre avocado and apple farm. He died of cancer in late 2015. "I just don't think my husband would have taken that risk if he had known," said Teri McCall, one of dozens nationwide who are suing Monsanto, claiming the chemical gave them or a loved one cancer. But farmer Paul Betancourt, who has been using Roundup for more than three decades on his almond and cotton crops, says he does not know anyone who has gotten sick from it. One thing is for sure is that cancer is on the rise in America with experts forecasting that cases could surge 57% worldwide in the next 20 years. And although the main reason cancer risk overall is rising is because of our increasing lifespan, lifestyle and diet are important factors. Adding to this, experts are telling us that pesticides used in planting our foods could be a contributing factor as well. Most importantly, it is reasonable to believe that anything that can kill weeds which as we know, grows and thrives when other plants can't, and can be killed by glyphosate — high concentration in and around our foods is probably not a good idea. Bravo Caltfornia Chalk this one up for Big Coal EFTA00635616  House Republicans Vote To Overturn Rule Protecting Waterways From Mining Inline image 1 A large mountaintop removal mining operation, seen in 2008 in West Virginia. While most people were focused on the frenzy of Executive Orders coming out the White House and the nomination of Judge Neil Gorsuch as President Trump's pick for the Supreme Court, House Republicans voted to overturn a regulation meant to protect U.S. waterways from coal mining operations on Wednesday. The measure will now move to the Senate, where GOP leaders are expected to quickly follow suit. Earlier this week, lawmakers in both houses announced bills to block the stream protection rule, an update to regulations that the Department of Interior finalized toward the end of President Barack Obama's tenure. The update overhauled requirements for coal mining operations in order "to avoid mining practices that permanently pollute streams, destroy drinking water sources, increase flood risk and threaten forests." The stream protection rule mandates testing and monitoring of waterways before, during and after mining operations, and requires companies that have used controversial practices like mountaintop removal mining to restore land to its "previous condition" after operations are finished. It updates regulations that were more than three decades old. The House also voted to overturn a Securities and Exchange Commission regulation, passed last June, called the "extraction rule." The provision would require energy companies to disclose payments made to foreign governments for oil, gas and mineral developments and were intended to promote "greater transparency" among the sector. Fossil fuel interests rallied hard against the rule, including now Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who fought it while he was still the head of Exxon Mobil. EFTA00635617 Republicans, particularly those from coal states, strongly object to the new rules. Shortly after Obama signed the regulation, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced his plan to overturn the stream protection rule using the rarely invoked Congressional Review Act. The CRA grants Congress 60 days to vote to overturn executive branch regulations with a majority in both houses, with the approval of the president. That deadline is sometimes extended, and Congress may be able to roll back any law signed by Obama after mid-June of last year under some interpretations of the act. The act is rarely used except during transitions of power, as presidents would be unlikely to overturn a rule that they or a predecessor in the same party had already signed. President Donald Trump's arrival in the White House, however, has given Republicans an opening. The CRA has only been used successfully once before — to block a Clinton-administration ergonomics rule shortly after President George W. Bush took office. The New York Times notes that while congressional Republicans tried to use the CRA to nullify regulations five times during the Obama administration, Obama vetoed the legislation each time. Inline image 2 Throughout his presidential campaign, Donald Trump promised to revive American coal production. McConnell lambasted nearly all of Obama's environmental regulations, and called the stream protection rule "just one example of the former administration's policies that have jeopardized jobs and taken power away from state and local governments in order to grow the federal bureaucracy." "This regulation, like many others of the Obama era, does not take into account the negative consequences these policies would have on hardworking Americans and the families they support," McConnell said in a statement this week. Scott Slesinger, legislative director at the Natural Resources Defense Council, disputed McConnell's claims, saying the rule has had "virtually no impact on jobs." He argued that Republicans are invoking the CRA simply so they can "show something on coal," given Trump's campaign promises to revive the industry. But the fuel isn't as cheap, or as desirable, as it once was — and that's not because of the new regulations. "As everybody really knows, the number of jobs in the coal industry is not a factor of environmental rules, despite local claims to the contrary, but of the competitiveness of coal to natural gas," Slesinger said. "It's a myth that these are coal states anymore." EFTA00635618 Coal production has fallen steadily since 2006 as cleaner-burning natural gas has became cheaper, according to the Energy Information Agency. Many industry analysts have expressed doubt about the fossil fuel's resurgence as other leading coal users, such as China, have vowed to end their reliance on coal in an effort to tackle climate change. Congress is expected to overturn the rule regardless of those other concerns. House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) sent out a press release ahead of Wednesday's anticipated vote saying the rule "will" be overturned and calling it "an ineffective attempt to improve the environment as mines saddled with this regulation already have virtually no off-site impact." "It's just another way the unaccountable bureaucracy is imposing all pain for no gain," he said. Inline image 3 Obviously Congressional Republicans have forgotten the Gold King Mine in the Bonita Peak Mining District in Colorado that spilled more than 3 million gallons of wastewater into western rivers. Within a day of the wastewater spill in August 2015, the Animas River between the communities of Silverton and Durango turned a sickly yellow. The accident was blamed on workers who damaged a plug that held the water back. The spill flooded a holding pond and sent water fouled with lead, arsenic, zinc, iron, cadmium and other toxins into tributaries to the Animas River. In the days that followed, the contamination spread to rivers in New Mexico and Utah. "Listing the Bonita Peak Mining District is critical to addressing historic mining impacts in San Juan County and our downstream communities," Martha Rudolph, director of environmental programs for the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, said in a statement. "We are committed to working closely with our federal and state partners to achieve an effective cleanup, while ensuring that all our affected communities have a voice in the process as this moves forward." A year ago the Associated Press reported that the spill "dumped 88o,000 pounds of metals" into the Animas River, and that "most of the metals settled into the riverbed." The metals considered are "cadmium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, zinc, and possibly others." And although the water in the Animas River looks much clearer there are still concerns for the health of those who depend on the river. Obviously having not learned anything under President Trump's reckless disregard for any environmental oversight Congress current obsession to roll back protection for our rivers, without a doubt history will repeat itself, until the water table itself is contaminated creating a scarcity of clean water for both irrigation and drinking. EFTA00635619  This is No Longer True "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me, I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" Inline image 2 And Why These 7 Countries A week ago Friday, President Donald Trump banned nationals of seven Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States for at least the next go days by executive order. The order bars all people hailing from Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. Those countries were named in a 2016 law concerning immigration visas as "countries of concern." The executive order also bans entry of those fleeing from war-torn Syria indefinitely. Trump also stopped the admission of all refugees to the United States for four months. The order also calls for a review into suspending the Visa Interview Waiver Program, which allows travelers from 38 countries -- including close allies -- to renew travel authorizations without an in-person interview. President Trump went before cameras to defend this executive order saying, "to keep radical Islamic Terrorist out of the United States of America.... We don't want them here." First of all, its roll out was so sloppy that even the President's most ardent supporters were embarrassed. And aside from the Constitutionality concerns of the Executive Order, as it is widely seen as a Muslim ban with Rudy Giuliani going on Fox News, "What we did was, we focused on, instead of religion, danger," the former New York City mayor said, in reference to the targeted nations: Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. "Which is a factual basis, not a religious basis. ... It's based on places where there are substantial evidence that people are sending terrorists into our country." — Many terrorism experts EFTA00635620 say that it plays directly into the hands of ISIS and Al Qaeda, who would like to see a religious war between Islam and The West. Inline image 3 But what confused me and many others were why these seven countries? Because after sifting through databases, media reports, court documents, and other sources, Alex Nowrasteh, an immigration expert at the libertarian Cato Institute, (a conservative think tank) has arrived at a striking finding: Nationals of the seven countries singled out by Trump have killed zero people in terrorist attacks on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015. Again.... Zero. As for refugees, Nowrasteh writes, Trump's action "is a response to a phantom menace." Over the last four decades, 20 out of 3.25 million refugees welcomed to the United States have been convicted of attempting or committing terrorism on U.S. soil, and only three Americans have been killed in attacks committed by refugees—all by Cuban refugees in the 1970s. Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack in the United States. Zero Americans have been killed by Syrian refugees in a terrorist attack in the United States. Inline image 4 EFTA00635621 Between 1975 and 2015, the "annual chance of being murdered by somebody other than a foreign-born terrorist was 252.9 times greater than the chance of dying in a terrorist attack committed by a foreign- born terrorist," according to Nowrasteh. Nowrasteh has listed foreign-born individuals who committed or were convicted of attempting to commit a terrorist attack on U.S. soil by their country of origin and the number of people they killed. As in any exercise like this, the statistics are rough and directional rather than precise. For example, the San Bernardino attacker Tashfeen Malik, who was born in Pakistan but lived in Saudi Arabia most of her life, is counted as originating from Saudi Arabia. In the case of attacks perpetrated by multiple terrorists, like 9/11, each terrorist is assigned an equal number of victims. Still, it's worth noting that the countries at the top of the list, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, are not included in Trump's ban. I've bolded the countries included in Trump's executive order. Inline image 5 EFTA00635622  R Inline image 6 Inline image 7 Inline image 2 gi While during the past 4o years there was not one terrorist from the seven countries banned by President Trump's executive order, 2,369 U. S. citizens have been killed by terrorist from Saudi Arabia, 314 from U.A.E. and 162 from Egypt. Therefore as Fareed Zakaria said, "why certain countries are on or off this list is truly mysterious And none of the Muslim majority countries that have a Trump hotel or office are on the list." Zakaria, quoting the Cato report says that including 9/11 the chance of an American citizen being killed by a foreign terrorist on U.S. soil between 1975 and 2015 was 1 in 3.6 million per year. And being killed by a refugee is that same period is 1 in 3.64 billion per year. EFTA00635623  Inline image 3 Web Link: http://cnn.it/2jKMpLS This week Fareed Zakaria gave his take on why Trump's executive order on immigration is "fear mongering" that risks destroying the US's reputation as a beacon of hope. Along with me, Zakaria concluded that, "there is really no rational basis for this policy. And what explains it is President Trump's penchant to employ the exploitation of fear. From the birther campaign to the talk of Mexican rapist Trump has always trafficked fear mongering. This time to stoke those fears and present himself as the country's protector he chose to punish ordinary men, women and children who are fleeing terrorism and viles... who are willing to brave the odds and bear the hardships and separate from family and home, all to try to come to America. These people are the roadkill of Trump's posturing. But something else in being destroyed along with it. The image, reputation and goodwill of the United States as the beacon of the world. As someone noted over the past few days, Donald Trump seems to want to turn off that lamp on the Statue of Liberty." And this is my rant of the week.... WEEK's READING S College's hidden costs What the admissions office doesn't tell you EFTA00635624  lit Inline image 1 The trips home for the holidays can add to the expense of your child's college experience. Along with paying for the cellphone and Uber and library fines. You might actually be relieved to see the graduation fees by the time you get there. I know that this is still winter but since may families with seniors in high schools are already thinking of college in the fall, the hidden costs of college is something that you and they should start thinking about now. Whatever you think you know about college costs, you're wrong. It's going to cost more. Lots more. For many families, college's hidden costs will probably be a prime topic of discussion this Thanksgiving weekend, when students filter home — many for the first time since school started — for urgently needed refills on home-cooked grub, family face time and cold cash. Take it from someone who has seen this process a college freshman first year several times. It is easy to think that you know what the first year at school would cost, but you will dead wrong. You, however, don't have to be. Think of this as a guide to figuring out what college will actually cost you and your kid. This story isn't about the basics such as tuition, room and board. Most — but not all — colleges spell that out on their websites. This is about everything else. The costs that you usually cannot pilfer from the 529 College Saving Plan account. Like the Uber rides to those off-campus parties. The off-campus food runs. Even orientation — with, of course, a stop at the college bookstore for sweatshirts. On a monthly basis, these costs ically stack up to $250 to $5oo a month, estimates Mark Kantrowitz, publisher of , a website focused on how to pay for college. These costs may be close to what students pay for tuition. "If you don't budget for this, you are bound to get a call around the middle of the first semester for more money," Kantrowitz said. "Perhaps the goal of college should not just be about getting a good education but learning how not to run out of money." The real costs of college are not for the meek of heart or weak of wallet. What most colleges post on their websites as the estimated "cost of attendance" is typically focused on tuition, room and board and books. At James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Va., for example, that's listed at $20,952 for an in-state undergraduate for the 2016-2017 school year. That adds up to just under $84,000 over four years. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. But if you factor in the top end of the "hidden" costs — as estimated by Kantrowitz — that four-year price tag suddenly balloons to nearly $108,000. "The parents are probably the most surprised," said David Levy, editor of Edvisors, a website that assists families in planning and paying for college. "Students often have no idea how expensive it is because Mom and Dad are paying for it." EFTA00635625 Not that Mom and Dad planned it this way. Nearly half of all parents of college students expect their children to pay for all or some of their costs, according to a recent Discover Student Loans survey of parents. That compares with 39 percent in 2012. Then reality sets in. Many students who plan to work get to school and find their class loads too heavy or available jobs too few. Learning on the fly. Let's take the story of a friend's daughter, Rachel, is a freshman at California State Polytechnic University at Pomona, one of those not-too-insanely-expensive California State colleges. Never mind that Rachel previously toured and applied to a handful of Virginia colleges including Virginia Commonwealth University and James Madison University. Her parents even sent a down payment to JMU shortly after Rachel was accepted there. Things change. During a gap year that Rachel mostly spent volunteering abroad, she had a change of heart. They then went through a second round of out- of-state college applications, and with Rachel's heart set on a Los Angeles lifestyle and a Left Coast learning style, Cal Poly won her over. Before writing that first check to Cal Poly, during a family campus visit, they sat down with the school's associate director of financial aid, who figured, to the penny, that their daughter's freshman year would cost $33,221. Wrong. Well, maybe if Rachel never flew home for vacation. And they never went to visit her. And if she never ate a bite off campus. And, well, don't just take it from their experience. Take it from the experts. Here, in no particular order, are costs to consider: • Transportation. Few college costs are more unpredictable — and unnerving — than transportation, Levy said. The typical student attending an out-of-state school requires at least two, and usually three, round-trip tickets home during the school year, he said. Never mind that these flights are often pegged around holidays when fares are at their peaks. Many students attending in- state schools want their own cars — whose annual costs are typically magnified by exorbitant campus parking fees and added costs for on-campus traffic violations. For those without cars, frequent Uber charges can quickly break the bank. Most student Uber accounts are set up to parent credit cards, noted Jodi Okun, founder of College Financial Aid Advisors. "For safety reasons, most parents are willing to pay these costs," she said. • Mandatory fees. Most colleges require students to pay a laundry list of mandatory fees each semester, which are seriously consequential when added together. At American University, for example, undergraduates each semester pay a $120 student technology fee, a $65 sports center fee, an $88.5o undergraduate activity fee and a $130 Metro University Pass fee. That comes to $403.50 per semester; or $807 annually. "Sometimes it feels like the college is nickeling and diming you," Kantrowitz said. EFTA00635626  • Off-campus eats. Forget the hundreds — if not thousands — of dollars you pay for the campus meal plan each semester. Your kid is going to spend at least $765 eating off campus annually, according to a study by Farmers Financial Solutions. Since that study, crunched in 2011, the "Starbucksfactor" has increased that figure, though it's unclear by how much, said John Mueting, president of Farmers Financial Solutions, the financial services arm of Farmers Insurance. By Kantrowitz's estimates, if your kid opts to eat a $10 meal off campus every Friday night, over four years, that could cost upward of $2,000. • Computer. Few costs bear the instant bite of buying that new college laptop. If your kid wants a new Apple MacBook Air with the works and a warranty, it can cost close to $2,000, Kantrowitz said. Levy strongly recommends checking first with the college bookstore, which typically offers fat educational discounts via major manufacturers. Best bet: Buy last year's model, which typically will be on sale, or even a used one, he said. (Computer costs, by the way, can come out of 529 savings.) • Expensive majors. Some majors cost more than others. Art majors will likely need to pay hundreds of additional dollars for materials each semester, Kantrowitz said. Majors in chemistry and physics will likely have costly lab fees. And some performing arts majors will have to pay extra for studio or practice room time. • Greek life. Should your kid opt to join a fraternity or sorority, it's gonna cost you. A spokesman for the National Panhellenic Conference declined to give an average cost of dues, saying that they vary greatly from campus to campus. But dues alone can stretch to $1,200 per semester, said Jane Horowitz, a career launch coach for college students. Some schools even require students to live in sorority or fraternity houses to join. But the real financial pinch of Greek life is often the cost of clothes, she said. One of her client's daughters had to buy seven dresses (at about $15o each) after she was recruited to chair her sorority at a large, Southern university. The dresses alone cost more than $1,000. • Internship. "This is one of the biggest hidden costs of college," Horowitz said. A typical summer internship — most of which are nonpaying gigs — can cost upward of $5,000 in transportation, housing, food and other related costs. One of her clients recently spent more than $10,000 on their kid's 13-week summer internship at Sony in Los Angeles. "How do you put a price on this kind of experience, which your kid would never get in the classroom?" she asked. • Spring break. This one's a killer. A spring break vacation for a college student can easily cost in the $2,000 range for a full week, Okun said. Students from the East Coast often head west, and students from the West Coast often head east or south to Mexico. Airfares jump at spring break time, as do hotel costs. "I talk to parents about making certain their students pay their fair share of the spring break costs," Okun said. • Study abroad. If your child plans to study abroad for even one semester, figure an additional $1o,000 in costs — excluding tuition, Horowitz said. Those costs include airfare, housing, food and any additional travel the student has in mind. "You don't think of this as a cost of college, but for many people, it really is," she said. EFTA00635627  • The Girlfriend/Boyfriend/Best Friend. Be prepared to shell out money for airline tickets so that your child can bring home their significant other or best friend as well the additional costs of dating, and the outlays for maintaining the social relevance, which can include traveling to other colleges in the vicinity for dub meets, sporting events, concerts, galas, etc. • Silly stuff. Don't fall for the marketing hype that's certain to fill your inbox right after your kid enrolls at college. Within days of Rachel's registration at Cal Poly, her parents started receiving regular emails from Our Campus Market, a school-approved marketer that, for $120, would send her bimonthly care packages loaded with Doritos, Cheez-Its and Snickers bars. The pitch almost makes it sound like by ignoring it, your kid will be the only student who doesn't get TLC from Mom and Dad. Levy strongly discourages these kinds of purchases. "What your kid probably wants most is a thoughtful letter from home with a picture of the family pet," he said. Here are 1O additional college costs 3,O1.1 probably hadn't thought about: • Annual boosts in tuition/housing. These costs don't stay static. Most years, these increase by 1 percent to 3 percent. • Storage fees. Don't forget about where your kid plans to store all of that college "stuff' over the summer. It's going to cost you to rent or share storage space. And then there's the cost of transporting it, if your kid doesn't have a car. • Room decoration. No, you won't have to carpet or wallpaper your kid's dorm room, but even minimal decorations such as posters, lights and knickknacks have a price. Also, coffee makers, lights, waste baskets, blankets, sheets, towels, hair dryers, bathroom supplies, iron and ironing boards, etc. Once they move off campus, there's furniture and sometimes appliances to purchase. • Rental insurance. Your home insurance policy may — or may not — cover your kid's college digs. Better check. • Changing majors. This one can be a killer. Pay for a year or two of classes in one major, but then your kid changes to another. This move can cost many thousands of dollars in additional required classes. Much cheaper to change majors earlier than later. • Cellphone. No matter what mobile phone plan your family is on, it's almost guaranteed that your kid will consume more data at college. EFTA00635628  • Personal hygiene. College will likely be the first time your kid comes face to face with the high costs of keeping clean. • Late payments and fines. Few college students are able to avoid the maze of late payments and fines at college. Those library fines can be particularly nasty. • Printing and photocopying. Your kid might need a printer — or plan to hook up to one in the dorm or elsewhere at school. Either way, it adds up. • Graduation fees. It's not just the cap and gown that will cost you. So will the photos, celebration party and, of course, graduation gifts. Most parents are only too happy to pay this one. In the end, Kantrowitz said, it's too easy to blame the colleges and everyone else instead of looking inward. Yes, many colleges understate the real costs of attendance. But parents and students have to do their homework, too. For that matter, these additional college costs should not all be looked at with dread or horror. "You can avoid some of them, but you don't really want to avoid all of them," Kantrowitz said. "If you do, your kid will miss out on the full college experience." The Voter Fraud Fantasy Shame on You lit Mine image 4 EFTA00635629 There are varying degrees of absurdity in the fallacies President Trump peddled during his first week in the Oval Office. Perhaps the most damaging was his insistence that millions of Americans voted illegally in the election he narrowly won. Mr. Trump first made that false claim in late November, tweeting that he would have won the popular vote "if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally." On Wednesday, he announced that he intended to launch a "major investigation" into voting fraud and suggested the outcome may justify tightening voting rules. What once seemed like another harebrained claim by a president with little regard for the truth must now be recognized as a real threat to American democracy. Mr. Trump is telegraphing his administration's intent to provide cover for longstanding efforts by Republicans to suppress minority voters by purging voting rolls, imposing onerous identification requirements and curtailing early voting. "This is another attempt to undermine our democracy," said Representative Barbara Lee of California, one of the states where Mr. Trump falsely claimed results were tainted by large scale fraud. "It's about not honoring and recognizing demographic change." The apparent source of Mr. Trump's original claim of mass voter fraud was Gregg Phillips, a Texas man with a penchant for maldng wild allegations about voting fraud. Days before Mr. Trump's tweet,