EFTA00838999.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bce: [email protected] Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.. 12/13/2015 Date: Sun, 13 Dec 2015 09:39:41 +0000 Attachments: Dionne_Warrick_bio.docx; 12.13.15_Top_10_Most_Socialist_Countries_in_the_World.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(13).png; image(14).png; image(I5).png; image(16).png; image(17).png; image(18).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 Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World !aline image s Last week I did a piece encouraged by Philip Bump's New York Times article — Capitalist, Socialist, Communist, do you know the dfference - which he said was inspired when the day after the first Democratic presidential debate, Donald Trump called Bernie Sanders a maniac. "This socialist-slash-communist," Trump said to raucous cheers. "I call him a socialist-slash-communist, because that's what he is." Well, no. Bernie Sanders calls himself a "democratic socialist" which has as much to do with communism as it does with capitalism. EFTA00838999 Trump employed the label socialist as a slur, and for those who weren't sure of its implication, linked it communist. Most Americans having been told their entire lives that both Socialism and Communism are evil, whether they can tell the distinction between them is not important as they being used to disqualify someone who is far more trustworthy than his accuser. But like capitalism, in some countries socialism works really well and in almost every capitalist counties there are successful socialist programs. The term socialist has been thrown around quite a bit in the past few years. Not since the cold war has the term garnered so much attention in the press and from politicians. But when you look at countries who actually have a socialist economic structure, you can see some similarities to the United States — but there are some really stark differences. And if you notice in the list below, is it said that Canada is bit less socialist than the Netherlands but more than Sweden, Norway and Ireland. Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today: • China • Denmark • Finland • Netherlands • Canada • Sweden • Norway • Ireland • New Zealand • Belgium Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger. China In China the government manages and controls the economy. Many of the domestic companies are owned and run by the government. Recently, the Chinese economy has become more geared towards capitalism, but is still officially socialist. Life in China remains relatively less stressful and more relaxed than life in capitalist countries like America. EFTA00839000  Inline image 2 Denmark Denmark has a wide range of welfare benefits that they offer their citizens. As a result, they also have the highest taxes in the world. Equality is considered the most important value in Denmark. Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 5o employees or less. Inline image 3 Amagertory in Copenhagen, Denmark Finland Finland has one of the world's best education systems, with no tuition fees and also giving free meals to their students. The literacy rate in Finland is loo percent. Finland has one of the highest standards of living in the world. Like Denmark and other European countries, equality is considered one of the most important values in society. Whereas in the Netherlands, government control over the economy remains at a minimum, but a socialist welfare system remains. The lifestyle in the Netherlands is very egalitarian and organized, where even bosses do not discipline or treat their subordinates rudely. EFTA00839001  Inline image 4 Paasitorni by the Sea in Helsinki Canada Like the Netherlands, Canada also has mostly a free market economy, but has a very extensive welfare system that includes free health and medical care. Canadians remain more open-minded and liberal than Americans, and Canada is ranked as one of the best top five countries to live in by the United Nations and the Human Development Index (HDI) rankings. Inline image 1 Sweden Sweden has a large welfare system, but due to a high national debt, required much government intervention in the economy. In Norway, the government controls certain key aspects of the national economy, and they also have one of the best welfare systems in the world, with Norway having one of the highest standards of living in all of Europe. Norway is not a member of the European Union. EFTA00839002  lit Inline image 6 Ireland Ireland has arguably one of the best welfare systems in the world, with unemployment checks higher on average than Denmark or Switzerland's average. Around 25 percent of Ireland's GDP goes towards paying for the welfare system, as compared to 15 percent of America' GDP towards America's social support programs. 2. Inline image 7 New Zealand New Zealand may not be a socialist country, but the welfare system in the country is very wide ranging, offering support for housing, unemployment, health, child care, and education as well. Therefore, New Zealand has many of the characteristics of a socialist country, even while remaining officially free market. EFTA00839003  G. Inline image The location of Hobbiton, as used in the Lord of the Rings films. Near Matamata in New Zealand Belgium Lastly, Belgium has most of the same social security benefits that New Zealand offers, including invalid and old age pensions. The welfare system causes much of the country's budget deficit though, and so is considered by some to be a burden on society. Inline image 9 Het Plein at the Hague, Belgium ****** EFTA00839004  So True Inline image 1 ****** One map that puts America's gun violence epidemic in perspective Wino imago 1 VJ Above is a map of firearm ownership around the world, using 2012 data compiled by The Guardian. The United States has nearly twice as many guns per 100 people as the next closest, Yemen — 88.8 guns per 100 as opposed to 54.8 in Yemen: Zack Beauchamp: October I. 2015 EFTA00839005 Now, gun ownership doesn't translate directly to more homicides. For instance, the United States has over 12 times as many guns per person as Honduras, but the 2012 US gun homicide rate per 100,000 people (2.97) is 1/22 of Honduras' (68.43). That's because, while guns make murder easier, internal instability or weak governance, or especially a recent history of internal conflict, can also contribute to this sort of violence. But when you compare the United States to nations like Britain and Japan, it becomes clear that firearm ownership contributes to America's murder problem. The American firearm homicide rate is about 20 times the average among Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries (excluding Mexico). "MORE GUNS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH MORE HOMICIDES ACROSS INDUSTRIALIZED COUNTRIES" Harvard researchers Daniel Hemenway and Matthew Miller examined 26 developed countries, and checked whether gun ownership correlated with murder rates. They found that "a highly significant positive correlation between total homicide rates and both proxies for gun availability." They also didn't find much evidence that a higher rate of gun murders led to lower rates of other kinds of murder (i.e., stabbings). Interestingly, these results tended to hold true even when you exclude the United States and its super- high homicide and gun-ownership rates. "More guns are associated with more homicides across industrialized countries," Hemenway and Miller conclude. Another study, by Berkeley's Franklin Zimring and Gordon Hawkins, found that the US has crime rates comparable to those in similarly developed countries, but much higher rates of lethal violence — owing in significant part to our high rates of gun ownership. Data from inside the United States suggests the same thing. A recent, highly sophisticated study found that, once you control for general crime rates and other confounding factors, "each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership" translated to a o.9 percent increase in homicides. A meta-analysis — study of studies - found a strong consensus among researchers that access to guns correlated with higher homicide rates in the United States. So it seems very, very likely that the US' exceptional rate of firearm ownership is contributing to its exceptionally high murder rate. That's one reason why, despite the fact that the murder rate is falling sharply both inside the United States and around the world, America's murder rate remains much higher than the rest of the developed world's. And for those who claim that they want a gun for protection, it is a false argument. More than two- thirds of gun deaths in America are suicides and (96.5%) gun suicide attempts are successful, compared slashing wrists (5.4%) or poisons (7.4%). Nearly 6 times more women were shot by husbands, boyfriends, and ex-partners than murdered by male strangers. A woman's chances of being killed by her abuser increase more than 5 times if he has access to a gun. And for those who believe that arming schools, college campuses and theaters — Mass shootings stopped by armed civilians in the past 3o years: o. EFTA00839006 For more information I invite you to click on the web link below and then on the video in the VOX article. Web Link: Finally suicides are impulsive actions thus any reduction of access to guns would also reduce the suicide death rate. And for those who believe that carrying guns make a person safer, a Philadelphia study found that the odds of an assault victim being shot were 4.5 times greater if he carried a gun. His odds of being killed were 4.2 times greater. Finally 1 in 5 shootings in an ER involve guns taken from armed guards. And as someone who was shot at by a transient who took and killed a police officer with his own weapon I can personally attest to that fact. More than 30,000 people die via gun violence in America each year and the only sure way to reduce this scourge is by getting rid of guns no matter what your interpretation of the Constitution, which by the way doesn't say that every person is entitled to own a gun. Obama on the Goal of his Foreign Policy Obama's Foreign Policy: Don't do stupid shit! Inline image 1 Web Link: https://voutu.beficq60thid3As When it comes to foreign policy, is President Obama a realist or an idealist? Turns out he rejects both terms. EFTA00839007  Understanding the war in Syria Syria's war: A 5-minute history a Inline image 2 Web Link: Above is a web link to a video by Ezra Klein that attempts to why the bloody convoluted conflict is happening in Syria as well as the history of the players involvement in this proxy war. And yes, this video could be seen as a bit of propaganda but it also shows the complexly of the situation which will only be resolved when all of the major participants get together and cut a deal that they later support. One Comment: I agree with one of the people who commented on the factual truth of the video as the "Chemical Attack by Assad on his own people," is the same narrative that Western governments used as a reason to attack Iraq. Also I disagree with President Obama who as joined the neocons in branding President al Assad as an international piranha who should be overthrown, without realizing that the vacuum created by his departure most likely will result in a totally chaotic situation like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan. And for those of you who truly believe that bringing more military weaponry into Syria either by supplying more equipment and support would have made things better, understand that there are multiple sides in this proxy civil war. So if you would like to better understand why this war is happening, this video is a good start. ****** DANGEROUS No Longer Entertaining and This is Why EFTA00839008  Inline image 1 As Arianna Huffington wrote in the Huffington Post this week, "Donald Trump is no longer entertaining," after the current leading Republican presidential candidate in the polls he made his fascist impulses explicit on Monday calling for the "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States." And as Jeffrey Goldberg tweeted, "Donald Trump is now an actual threat to national security. He's providing jihadists ammunition for their campaign to demonize the US." And as someone who over the years has met 'The Donald' on numerous occasions and found him to be entertaining and at times self-effacing, except that the emergence of Barrack Obama he has morphed from an headline grandstanding force of nature who challenged a President's citizenship and credibility into an ugly and dangerous force in American politics. As today's El. Barnum in American politics, like most of America I too was amazed and amused by the Trump campaign sideshow which took over the 2016 Republican presidential primary this year like a force of nature in spite of his many exaggerations, innuendos, lies and crazy statements such as building a war to keep out immigrants and making the government of Mexico pay for it. And as a Liberal Democrat I found it hilarious knowing that he was alienating a generation or two of brown and black people from the Republican Party who refused to try to rein him in. Yet he continued breaking all of the rules and somehow his popularity continued to grow. But what Donald Trump is proposed this week is both unconstitutional and ridiculous, unless you believe that suspected terrorist will tell immigration/custom officers the truth when asked, "are you a Muslim," which is how Trump described his program would work. But enough is enough. Let's remember this is a man whose wealth and privilege allowed him to avoid the Vietnam War with five deferments, even though he likes to tell audiences that President Obama is weak and he somehow can defeat ISIS — but with what experience or evidence. This is a man who berates the President's economic policies, which has taken the country from the worst recession since the Great Depression to the strongest economy on the planet, even though Mr. Trump has have four bankruptcies costing shareholders and lenders billions of dollars. This is a person who is against EFTA00839009 immigrants even though he married two, and his current wife posed nude with multiple pictures on the Internet. This is what I call "White Privilege" because there is no way that Barrack Obama would have ever become President, if Michele Obama had taken the same type of pictures. Yet somehow Donald Trump has become the voice of the Teabag Movement and the loudest voice in the Republican Party, which shows you how corrupt the movement really was and how damaged the GOP had become. Big media likes to say that Donald Trump's political success is because he has tapped into the middle class and poor whites who have finally realized that the American Dream is no longer attainable for them and their families. But Donald Trump's fear mongering that it is Reverend Wright, Noam Chomsky, Big Government, Barrack Obama, Obamacare, Hillary Clinton, immigrants, liberals and as Sarah Palin likes to call them, "the lame-stream liberal media" — is not the reason why they were not enjoying the wealth around them Because if you really want to understand today's economic inequality, "follow the moneyfas Deep Throat would say. And as D. H. Hugley said, "when Donald Trump says that he wants to make America great again" what he really saying to his supporters is "that he wants to make America white again." This 'code' is not lost on people of color, just like one of its predecessors "silent majority" definitely didn't include me or any other black, brown, yellow or red person in America. Donald Trump's latest racist epitaph is so vile that Mr. Darth Vader himself, Dick Cheney, immediately denounced his anti-Muslim plan, saying that it "goes against everything we standfor and believe in" and "religiousfreedom has been a very important part of our history and where we camefrom." I also applaud Chris Christie who didn't mince words in a radio interview this week saying, "This is the kind of thing that people say when they have no experience and don't know what they are talking about. We do not need to resort to that type of activity nor should we." But I am calling out some the other candidates, GOP officials and conservative pundits who tried to spin and soft peddle the ugliness of Donald Trump's latest suggestion. Trump's chin-out toughness, sweeping right-hand gestures and talk of his "huge" successes and his "stupid" opponents all evoke the Italian dictator's style. Monday's breathtaking announcement that he would block all Muslims from entering the United States has many pointing out the obvious fascist overtones. Trump uses many of the fascist's tools: a contempt for facts, spreading a pervasive sense of fear and overwhelming crisis, portraying his backers as victims, assigning blame to foreign or alien actors and suggesting only his powerful personality can transcend the crisis. He endorsed the violence done to a dissenter at one of his rallies, and he now floats the idea of making entry to the United States contingent on religion. A quantitative analysis of Trump's speeches by the New York Times found that Trump echoes what historians said were "the appeals of some demagogues of the past century" in his repetition of "divisive phrases, harsh words and violent imagery." Again.... more troubling than Trump is the reluctance among Republican leaders to disavow him. If you substitute the word Jew for Muslim you can see that Donald Trump is playing out of the same Goebbels playbook that the Nazis employed in the 182os, 3os and 4os and you will realize that he is a unmitigated racist and bigot. There is no dancing around this. And for Ann Coulter and the others who defend him by saying that Donald Trump is only exposing what millions of Americans believe, he is playing to their fears, prejudice and ignorance which is dangerous and destructive and disgusting. But then Trump is speaking to the same ignoramuses who also support the current number two candidate the GOP Presidential primaries, Ted Cruz who response was to say that Donald Trump spoke the truth and the week after 150 World Leaders along with 40,000 delegates gathered In Paris to EFTA00839010 negotiate and sign a binding agreement that would hopefully help slow the pace of global climate change, held his own Senate committee hearing aimed at casting doubt on the scientific theory that global warming is at least in part man-made. Most important, ISIS, Sharia law, Islam and Mexicans coming over the border are not threats to America. And yes the shooting in San Bernardino which killed 14 people was an egregious act of madness but to paint the almost one-quarter of the world's population with the same brush is as ridiculous as blaming Christianity for Jim Jones who killed 911 people and Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols for killing 168 and injuring more than 500 innocent civilians or the more than 340 plus other mass shootings in the United States this year that didn't involve Muslim shooters. Using Trump's logic, you would think that he would also be in favor of banning all assault rifles and military grade ammunitions but he is not neither are the other GOP 2016 Presidential contenders or Republican Establishment. Another example of 'White Privilege.' As Ryan Grim wrote this week — It is our responsibility to reject religious tests on who we admit into this country. It's our responsibility to reject proposals that Muslim-Americans should somehow be treated differently. Because when we travel down that road, we lose. That kind of divisiveness, that betrayal of our values, plays into the hands of groups like ISIL. Muslim-Americans are our friends and our neighbors, our co-workers, our sports heroes. And, yes, they are our men and women in uniform who are willing to die in defense of our country. We have to remember that. We were founded upon a belief in human dignity that no matter who you are, or where you come from, or what you look like or what religion you practice, you are equal in the eyes of God and equal in the eyes of the law. Even in this political season, even as we properly debate what steps I and future presidents must take to keep our country safe. In a segment on NBC's Nightly News, the much admired Tom Brokaw cautioned that Trump's proposal "is more, much more, than a shouted campaign provocation," comparing the move to the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, the Nazi persecution of Jews, and McCarthyism. "Trump's statement, even in the season of extremes, is a dangerous proposal that overrides history, the law, and the foundation of America itself," Brokaw said. "In my lifetime alone, we have been witness to the consequences of paranoia overriding reason." The journalist pointed to examples from throughout world history where fear and hatred of other races or religions—whether it was Japanese Americans, Jewish people in Germany, or Black people in the Jim Crow era—led to internment, genocide, and systemic oppression, respectively. "By stoking fears about Islamic extremists in America, Trump is allowing that same type of bigotry to inform his policy proposals, despite the fact that discriminatory actions against Muslim Americans feeds directly into the agenda of terrorist groups such as ISIS and also ignores the service and sacrifice of Muslims in the U.S. military." EFTA00839011  "Fear and intolerance and an entire category of people are marginalize. Thump's statements and dangerous proposals overrides history, the law and the foundation of America itself. And during the past century we have witnessed paranoia overriding reason. During VVW11 law abiding Japanese American citizens were herded into remote internment camps, losing their jobs, businesses, homes and social standing, while during the same time an all-Japanese division fought heroically in Europe. And in Germany it declared war on its own citizens if they were Jewish. With Germany paying the ultimate price, defeat and history's condemnation." "But after the war America still had to learn about demagoguery the hard way. Senator Joe McCarthy's rhetoric and anti-Communist witch-hunt, making evermore outrageous claims damaging reputations until one day when on June 9, 1954 a US Anny lawyer, Joseph Welsh responded, "have you no sense of decency sir?" All that while African Americas whose ancestors who first came here as slaves were treated as second or sometime third class citizens, in uniform or out." "Yes, the jihadists are radical Muslims, but they're a minority in a world with a billion and a half Muslims," Brokaw says, walking through Arlington National Cemetery, where Muslim American servicemen who died in combat are buried and honored. "Even so, defeating ISIS will be long, hard, and expensive—perhaps even more so now because ISIS is likely to use Donald Trump's statements as a recruiting tool." Let's make sure we never forget what makes us exceptional. Let's not forget that freedom is more powerful than fear. That we have always met challenges, whether war or depression, natural disasters or terrorist attacks, by coming together around our common ideals as one nation and one people. We cannot turn against one another by letting this fight be defined as a war between America and Islam. That, too, is what groups like ISIL want. As a result, Donald Trump is more dangerous if not more than the terrorist he rants against, as his divisive rhetoric and bigotry plays right into their hands and against the goal of assembling support here and abroad to isolate and defeat this latest terrorist madness of the ISIS and its supporters. And this is my rant of the week WEEK's READINGS CAUGHT EFTA00839012  Inline image I Exxon's Funding of Climate Denial Turned Americans Against Their Own Government for Profit There is new scandal brewing that although much more important than Hillary's emails but has gone almost unnoticed as several investigations by the media discovered that Exxon and other fossil fuel companies may have committed a crime of enormous proportions, but now more and more elected officials and others are demanding an investigation. Hopefully something finally will be done. The charge is that Exxon scientists and management knew since the late 197os that the company's product was helping cause our planet to warm "catastrophically," but management responded by covering this up and disseminating disinformation - joining with other companies to commit an enormous fraud on the public for profit. For some time, environmentalists have been warning that oil and coal companies were behind a broad campaign to deceive the public and block the government from regulating or taxing carbon pollution. Sites like ExxonSecrets, the Union of Concerned Scientists, Source Watch and their Coal Issues portal, CoalSwarm and many others have been exposing, warning, documenting and working to get the word out. This campaign is said to have included strategic use of misinformation, propaganda disseminated through front groups disguised as ideological organizations and purchased political influence to turn a substantial portion of the public against their own government. This was so that the companies could continue to profit from selling a dangerous, destructive product. Recent investigative reporting has been able to access internal Exxon documents and statements from company scientists that confirms what the environmentalists have been telling us. Exxon Knew In September Inside Climate News (ICN) broke a story they called "Exxon: The Road Not Taken." Using internal Exxon documents, Climate News showed how "Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago" that its executives suppressed as it went about "manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed." EFTA00839013 The report begins: At a meeting in Exxon Corporation's headquarters, a senior company scientist named James F. Black addressed an audience of powerful oilmen. Speaking without a text as he flipped through detailed slides, Black delivered a sobering message: carbon dioxide from the world's use of fossil fuels would warm the planet and could eventually endanger humanity. According to the reporting, beginning in the late 197os Exxon scientists repeatedly warned management that their product was contributing to warming the planet, and that this could be "catastrophic." A senior Exxon scientist, for example, warned in 1977 that "Present thinking holds that man has a time window offlue to ten years before the needfor hard decisions regarding changes in energy strategies might become critical." That was in 1977. Exxon scientists continued sounding the alarm and at first the company responded responsibly by launching an ambitious carbon/climate research effort. Within months the company launched its own extraordinary research into carbon dioxide from fossil fuels and its impact on the earth. Exxon's ambitious program included both empirical CO2 sampling and rigorous climate modeling. It assembled a brain trust that would spend more than a decade deepening the company's understanding of an environmental problem that posed an existential threat to the oil business. The Los Angeles Times looked at that research effort, in "What Exxon knew about the Earth's melting Arctic," part of a year-long project "researching the gap between Exxon Mobil's public position and its internal planning on the issue of climate change." The Times' investigation was extensive, with broad access to documents and experts: M part of that effort, reporters reviewed hundreds of documents housed in archives in Calgary's Glenbow Museum and at the University of Texas. They also reviewed scientific journals and interviewed dozens of experts, including former Exxon Mobil employees." The LA Times report found that Exxon scientists - and management - understood clearly that carbon was contributing to climate change and that the effects were real and severe. Reporter Neela Banerjee on Exxon and climate change I FRONTLINE EFTA00839014  Inline image 2 Web Link: https://yout u.b ea I RQoJ I i4c Neela Banerjee is a senior correspondent with Inside Climate News, which has been investigating Exxon's early scientific research on climate change. From the ICN report: Exxon's research laid the groundwork for a 1982 corporate primer on carbon dioxide and climate change prepared by its environmental affairs office. Marked "not to be distributed externally," it contained information that "has been given wide circulation to Exxon management." In it, the company recognized, despite the many lingering unknowns, that heading off global warming "would require major reductions infossilfuel combustion." Unless that happened, "there are some potentially catastrophic events that must be considered," the primer said, citing independent experts. "Once the effects are measurable, they might not be reversible." Exxon knew. The company was part of an industry that was profiting from a product that was polluting the planet with potentially "catastrophic" consequences that "endangered humanity." So what did Exxon do with that knowledge? What Exxon Did What did Exxon do after company scientists provided indisputable evidence of the risks their product posed to the planet and humanity? The ICN report continued: EFTA00839015  Then, toward the end of the 198os, Down curtailed its carbon dioxide research. In the decades that followed, Exxon worked instead at the forefront of climate denial. It put its muscle behind efforts to manufacture doubt about the reality of global warming its own scientists had once confirmed. It lobbied to block federal and international action to control greenhouse gas emissions. It helped to erect a vast edifice of misinformation that stands to this day. Exxon hid its corporate lobbying effort using a network of front groups disguised as ideological organizations and "think tanks" to disseminate disinformation and anti-government propaganda. They worked to sow doubt about the science - including smearing scientists and environmental activists — and to delegitimize potential efforts by governments to regulate its product. They also funded politicians who would help block efforts to regulate them. The ICN report explains: Exxon helped to found and lead the Global Climate Coalition, an alliance of some of the world's largest companies seeking to halt government efforts to curb fossil fuel emissions. Exxon used the American Petroleum Institute, right-wing think tanks, campaign contributions and its own lobbying to push a narrative that climate science was too uncertain to necessitate cuts in fossil fuel emissions. Exxon and other companies utilized a network of front groups to push what has come to be called "climate denial." The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) looked at what they call Global Warming Skeptic Organizations and warned, These organizations play a key role in the fossil fuel industry's "disinformation playbook," a strategy designed to confuse the public about global warming and delay action on climate change. Why? Because the fossil fuel industry wants to sell more coal, oil, and gas -- even though the science clearly shows that the resulting carbon emissions threaten our planet. The Union of Concerned Scientists' "Climate Deception Dossiers" examine a "coordinated campaign of deception" that is "underwritten by ExxonMobil, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, BP, Shell, Peabody Energy, and other members of thefossilfi e! industry." ExxonSecrets has mapped the networking of many of these organizations. And from 2007, New report from Union of Concerned Scientists documents ExxonMobil's disinformation campaign: Smoke, Mirrors & Hot Air: How ExxonMobil Uses Big Tobacco's Tactics to "Manufacture Uncertainty" on Climate Change, a report released today by the Union of Concerned Scientists, details how ExxonMobil has adopted the tobacco industry's disinformation tactics, as well as some of the same organizations and personnel, to cloud the scientific understanding of climate change and delay action on the issue. The section of the report on "Buying Government Access" includes discussion of documentation we made available in 2005 and issues we have raised since then. The Tobacco Model EFTA00839016 The Exxon/industry campaign strategies and tactics did not come out of nowhere. Tobacco companies had paved, refined and perfected the way. After scientists and doctors began to warn that tobacco was causing cancer in people, tobacco companies came up with a plan to block the government from regulating their product. They created a campaign to convince the public that the science was not certain. They pioneered the use of organizations disguised as political and ideological organizations to disseminate anti-government propaganda aimed at preventing regulation of their product. More than 480,000 Americans still die every year because of what the tobacco industry did. But their campaign to keep the profits rolling in didn't just kill people; it turned a substantial portion of the American public against their own government. They disguised their propaganda as "limited government" ideology, but it was really just a plan to limit the government from regulating them. The tobacco campaign worked for decades — bringing billions more in profits after the dangers of the product were known. Now that strategy serves as a model for other corporations that push products that injure, kill, scam, cheat or otherwise hurt people and worry that the government might try to do something about them. In 2008 Chris Mooney wrote at The American Prospect about companies using the tobacco industry's model in, "The Manufacture of Uncertainty," reviewing the book "Doubt is Their Product: How Industry's Assault on Science Threatens Your Health" by David Michaels. Mooney wrote: Sabotaging Science The sabotage of science is now a routine part of American politics. The same corporate strategy of bombarding the courts and regulatory agencies with a barrage of dubious scientific information has been tried on innumerable occasions - and it has nearly always worked, at least for a time. Tobacco. Asbestos. Lead. Vinyl chloride. Chromium. Formaldehyde. Arsenic. Atrazine. Benzene. Beryllium. Mercury. Vioxx. And on and on. In battles over regulating these and many other dangerous substances, money has bought science, and then science — or, more precisely, artificially exaggerated uncertainty about scientific findings — has greatly delayed action to protect public and worker safety. And in many cases, people have died. Tobacco companies perfected the ruse, which was later copycatted by other polluting or health- endangering industries. One tobacco executive was even dumb enough to write it down in 1969. "Doubt is our product," reads the infamous memo, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body offact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." Polluting Democracy, Too EFTA00839017 This propaganda and the money that propelled it has polluted our entire political system. Look into almost any organization (or political party) promoting "limited government" and complaining about "burdensome government regulation" and you will find oil money. This is not ideology; this is corruption. This is giant corporations trying to keep the government from doing something about their dangerous, destructive products. This is a crime against our country and the world. It is a crime against our democratic system. The companies behind this enormous fraud on the public must be investigated for possible criminal activity. The front groups that disseminate anti-government, anti-regulation propaganda at their behest should be exposed as frauds and brought under control. Now we have to move forward as quickly as possible to limit the burning of fossil fuels. Because of these companies and their fraud and disinformation, it is too late to stop the climate from changing — but it might not be too late to ward off the worst effects. ****** The "Gun Problem" Isn't Only a "Mental Illness Problem." "It's Just Really a "Gun Problem." Inline image 3 Increasingly, when we talk about gun violence in this country we also talk about mental illness. In many ways, this is not surprising: A number of instances of gun violence are committed by those with untreated, or undiscovered, mental disorders. This has lately led many politicians to place the blame for incidents of gun violence squarely on the lack of resources available for those suffering from mental illness. "It's a mental illness problem," Donald Trump recently declared on "Meet the Press" on NBC. "Guns, no guns, doesn't matter. You have people that are mentally ill and they're going to come through the cracks and they're going to do things that people will not even believe are possible." And, it seems, most Americans would agree. A joint poll conducted by the Washington Post and ABC News and released last week found that while 82 percent of Americans surveyed thought gun violence is a serious problem, more people -- by 2 to 1 -- believe such violence is a result of EFTA00839018 inadequate methods and means of treating the mentally ill than of inadequate gun laws. The problem with these findings, though, is that they likely won't be used to implement, or even argue for better, detection and treatment of those with mental illness. Instead, they'll be co-opted by politicians -- like Trump -- who'll use the survey and others like it as evidence that gun controls are just fine; that, as one site put it, "guns don't kill people; crazy people do." Except that's not entirely true: The vast majority of gun violence is still committed by people who are not mentally ill. Many incidents are accidents. Many are committed by children who happen upon guns in their/their neighbors'/their relatives' houses. And many, as we know, are committed by teenagers who are just beginning to show symptoms of the onset of mental illness -- cases in which early detection wouldn't necessarily apply. And, of course, not everyone suffering from mental illness will commit gun violence -- in one study, in fact, fewer than 5 percent of gun-related deaths were committed by those diagnosed with mental illness. (As President Obama recently said, "we are not the only country on Earth that has people with mental illnesses... we are the only advanced country on earth that sees these kinds of mass shootings every few months.") Meanwhile, efforts to imply that all, or even most, incidents of gun violence are at the hands of the mentally ill only serves to increase the stigma directed towards those who suffer, which a 2013 study out of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health acutely confirmed. So while it's easy to put the blame for gun violence on the mentally ill -- or the lack of support for them -- it's misleading, and ultimately unlikely to do anything to end needless gun-related deaths. Especially if levels of support for the mentally ill do not change. Because despite all this talk of mental illness in the context of gun violence, few have offered any solutions to problems of inadequate of inaccessible mental health care. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, 61.5 million Americans suffer from mental illness in any given year -- while the CDC reports that just over a third of people with severe depression had been to see a mental health professional within the previous year -- though we rarely hear about this underserved group of people until a tragedy occurs. But for those impacted -- as well as for their families -- mental illness is an everyday tragedy too often ignored -- until, it seems, it's needed as a scapegoat. As "Last Week Tonight" host John Oliver recently said on his show, "there is nothing like a mass shooting to suddenly spark political interest in mental health." That's because the real motive behind bringing up mental illness in the context of gun violence isn't to discuss ways we might better the services available to those suffering, but to steer the conversation away from the topic that's really at hand: that guns are too readily available to too many people. While it's true that in some cases -- some cases -- the "crazy person" might pull the trigger, it's also true that someone else gave the crazy person the gun. Which is why, if reform is to be had in either or both the spheres of mental health or gun violence, it's not an either/or blame game: The U.S. needs mental health reform, and it also needs tighter gun laws, and the two need to work in concert to make any sort of impact. There are other ways to make a difference, too. For one thing, manufacturers should be required by law to use available safety technology to prevent accidental deaths. For another, there should be increased funding for medical research on guns, an area of research where there is very little funding at all. But the real, and increasingly untold, story is that there are two concurrent crises going on, and while these two crises occasionally overlap, it's naive -- and flat out wrong -- to think that simply solving one will magically solve the other. EFTA00839019  Dr. Peggy Drexler — The Huffington Post — November 5, 2015 Really Really Rich The world's richest 0.00168% people There are 123,800 ultra-high-net-worth (UHNW) individuals in the world, according to Credit Suisse's 2015 Global Wealth Report. These folks have a net worth of over $50 million. Furthermore, about 44,900 of them have a net worth of at least Sioo million, and 4,500 have assets of $500 million. Notably, the number of UHNW individuals has dropped over the past year. "The strong dollar has reduced the number of UNHW adults by 800 since mid-2014; but our calculations suggest that there has been a small increase in the number of individuals owning more than USD 500 million," according to Credit Suisse analysts. But more important is where you find these people, according to the report: North America dominates the regional rankings, with 61,300 UHNW residents (50%), while Europe has 29,900 (24%) and 15,900 (13%) live in Asia-Pacific countries, excluding China and India. Among individual countries, the United States leads by a huge margin with 58,90o UHNW adults, equivalent to 48% of the group total (see graphic below). This represents a rise of 3,800 from the number in mid- 2014. China occupies second place with 9,600 UHNW individuals (up 1,800 on the year), followed by the United Kingdom (5,400, up 400) which switched places with Germany (4,900, down i,000). Switzerland (3,800, down 2OO) moved up by overtaking France (3,700, down 600). The biggest ranking gains were achieved by Hong Kong SAR (1,600, up 2OO), which climbed three places and Taiwan (2,2OO, up too), India (2,1OO, up loo) and Korea (1,800, up too) which all rose two places. Going in the opposite direction, Russia (1,800, down 1,000) dropped three places and Brazil (1,500, down Soo) and Sweden (1,400, down 300) each dropped two. If that's too much too read, here's what it looks like in a chart: ; 11)nline image 1 Why Eat Organic EFTA00839020  Pi Inline image 1 It is easy to come to the conclusion that eating pesticides is probably not in one's best interest. As a result, one of the strongest selling points for eating organic food is the fact that doing so can significantly lower your exposure to pesticides and other harmful chemicals used in conventional agriculture. Since organic standards prohibit the use of synthetic pesticides and herbicides, it stands to reason that organic foods would be less contaminated, and studies have indeed confirmed that those who eat a primarily organic diet have fewer toxins in their system. Considering the fact that long-term pesticide