EFTA01183526.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: jeevacation@gmail.com Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.. 5/22/2016 Date: Sun, 22 May 2016 07:06:35 +0000 Attachments: Martin_Sexton_bio.docx; transcript_ofDonald_Trump's_meeting_with_The_Wa_shington_Post_editorial_board_Mar ch_21,_2016.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 DEAR FRIEND The Plight of Homeless Teens in America It is estimated that there are 1.7 million homeless teens and younger children currently in America today. Inline image In most cases, poverty is the main reason children and teens worldwide end up homeless or living on the streets, according to a new review of past research. About 40 percent of youths reported poverty as the main reason they were homeless, according to the report in JAMA Pediatrics last month. Family EFTA01183526 conflict and abuse were also among the most commonly reported reasons for living on the streets. The findings should make policymakers "think hard about what they can do about these issues," said senior author Paula Braitstein, who is affiliated with the University of Toronto and based in Kenya. The researchers say societies often classify homeless youths as juvenile delinquents, which results in exclusion, criminalization and oppression. Until now there had been no large reviews of data on why youths end up on the streets, they write. Braitstein and her colleagues used data collected from 49 studies with a total of 13,559 participants from 24 countries, including 21 developing countries. No one was older than 24. Thirty-nine percent of participants cited poverty as their reason for homelessness. About 32 percent reported family conflict as their reason for being on the streets, and about 26 percent cited abuse. When the researchers examined countries by economic status, poverty was the main reason for youth homelessness in developing countries and family conflict was the main reason in developed countries. While delinquency is often blamed for youth homelessness, only to percent of participants said that was what caused them to be homeless. It was the least-cited reason. And even that to percent figure might be an overestimate, because youth are more inclined to report behavioral problems than abuse as a reason for living on the streets, said Dr. Colette Auerswald, of University of California Berkeley— University of California San Francisco Joint Medical Program. Jessica left home when she was 15 to escape abuse after her sole source of support, her brother, left to join the Air Force. She didn't have money for rent so she slept on friends couches in the beginning, then she started sleeping in laundromats or the public library and staying awake all night on the streets to try to stay safe. Aaron's sole caretaker, his mother, died when he was a teenager and he had no other family who could care for him. No one stepped in to care for him; not even the child welfare system. Aaron was sleeping at friends' houses for a bit, but soon ended up homeless and living on the streets. Charlene's mom struggled with addiction and when Charlene was 13 years old she became the primary caretaker of her three younger sisters. Charlene became pregnant at age 16 and after her son was born, her stepfather began to sexually abuse and rape her. Charlene found the strength to report her stepfather to the police and he was incarcerated. Soon after, Charlene was placed in foster care with her son. At i8, she exited foster care and became homeless with her son. Effects and Consequences of Youth Homelessness A wide range of physical, mental, emotional and behavioral issues have been shown to develop as a result of youth homelessness while prior complications are at risk of becoming exaggerated. Homeless youth living on the streets suffer, they: EFTA01183527  • • Are at high risk of developing serious, life-long health, behavioral and emotional problems. • • Suffer from high rates of depression and post-traumatic stress disorder. • • Are more likely they are to fall victim to sexual exploitation when compared to young people who are not living on the streets. • • More likely to contract HIV and/or STDs due to increased likelihood of sexual exploitation, rape and sexual assault. • • Have higher rates of a variety of mental health symptoms including anxiety, developmental delays and depression resulting in elevated risk for suicide attempts. • • Resorting to illegal activity such as stealing, forced entry, and gang activity in order to survive. • • Homeless young women are five times more likely to become pregnant and far more likely to experience multiple pregnancies. • • Fifty percent of homeless youth ages 16 and older drop out of high school and face extraordinary obstacles in trying to finish. Inline image 3 Homeless Youth & Teen Statistics & Facts • • Approximately *53,000 young people call the streets home every year. • • Nearly *7,400 homeless people 24 years old and younger live in New York City. • • Children under 18 accounted for 39% of the homeless population. o Of that number, approximately 42% were younger than age 5. • • Approximately 40% of homeless youth identify as LGBT. • • Every year, approximately 5,000 homeless young people will die because of assault, illness, or suicide while trying to survive. What are the cause of youth and teen homelessness? EFTA01183528 Young people are at far greater risk of becoming homeless if: • • Their parents engage in substance abuse or have mental health problems. • • They suffered or witnessed child abuse or neglect in the home. • • The family has been homeless previously. • • They identify themselves as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. • • They have been in foster care. o Children who have been in foster care are at greater risk of becoming homeless at an earlier age and to remain homeless for a longer period of time than other youth. How is child abuse related to youth and teen homelessness? • • 46% of homeless youth escaped a home where they suffered physical abuse. • • 17% left because of sexual abuse. What happens to homeless youth and homeless teens on the streets? Young people who are too old for foster care, yet too young to apply for social services are often forced into homelessness. Homeless youths can face devastating short and long-term consequences. • • Nearly 43% of homeless young men and 39% of homeless young women say they were assaulted with a weapon while living on the streets. • • Homeless youth suffer significant mental health problems including: depression, substance abuse, suicidal thoughts, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorders. • • Homeless youth are approximately 75% more likely to self-medicate and abuse substances as a means to deal with trauma and abuse. • • Children living on the streets are more likely to engage in "survival sex" — trading sex to gain food, clothing, drugs, money, or just for a safe place to sleep at night. • • According to a San Francisco government study, 1796 of homeless youth are HIV-positive. • • Homeless youth who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered are more likely commit suicide than other youth. Federal Programs Providing Assistance to Homeless Youth in America Remain Chronically Underfunded • • • ey-Vento Homeless Assistance Act, a HUD administered program, is only appropriated at $65 million to ensure equal access to education for homeless youth, including transportation to and from school. Given that public education supports over 1 million homeless youth per year, this works out to less than $65 per youth per year. What can I do to help homeless youth and help homeless teens? There are projects that help to give homeless young people the refuge they need from the streets — and critical resources they need to find safety and hope. So if you would like to make a difference for young EFTA01183529 people in crisis please here are some suggestions how you can begin below: • • Find organizations and projects that try to help homeless youth • • Volunteer to help homeless youth & teens • • Support services for homeless youth • • Understand that you can begin just by helping only one person you • • Push for local, state and national programs • • And most of all, push your family, friends, workmates and others to do something as well I am a Homeless Youth.... BUT!!! Inline image 4 Remember that many homeless youth may have a connection to their biological family, or a desire to reconnect to them or may come from a poor family, or a family may have money. But often they want to take care of their own children and be a good parents. They often need help in learning how, since more often than not, they have not had good role models in their own childhood. But for most homeless youth, their primary need is a safe place to live. Homeless youth come from cities, rural towns, suburbs, Indian reservations and border colonia, as well as foreign countries. Many have traveled miles from home, but they can just as easily traveled just a few blocks. Many have left on their own because it was safer for them to get out. But as many may have been kicked out of their homes because their families didn't understand or accept them. At the same time, many have been caught up in the wrong crowd, often for self-protection, whether or not they are violent or want to be a gang member. When speaking with them you often hear, that they are only hanging out on the street because they don't have another place to go. As a result, a large number of homeless teens end up providing sex in exchange for a place to live, food, or money. Situations can get really desperate. Homeless teens (and children) are no different from other youth, except they simply don't have a safe place to live and support to thrive. Homeless Youth want Self-Sufficiency. Most homeless youth have too much stress and competing priorities to operate at the same pace as my peers with safe places to live. They are not dumb or unmotivated. They just need the basics; a safe place to live, a source of food and clean clothes so that they can focus on finding a job or completing school. EFTA01183530 Most homeless youth want to work to support themselves, their siblings, children and other. But they need some help building work skills and finding a job, just like any other young person looking for a first job. In spite of their appearance, most homeless youth want to wear clean clothes and take regular showers. If they look grungy, it's because they don't have regular access to these basic things. Finally, a large percentage of homeless youth suffer from mental issues, that if address, would allow them to survive and prosper in society. Runaway and Homeless Youth Programs Change Lives For Jessica, like many young people, it was difficult to get off the streets. "The hardest thing is basically just getting around and trying to find a job `cause it's hard to get a job without an address. If you don't have somebody's address that you can use and say 'I live here' quote, unquote, then they look at your application and they're like `no'." A case manager from a Street Outreach program referred Jessica to a youth transitional living program where she established goals: "to stay in stable housing and try to finish my GED. I'm doing that through the program's school. It's free, which is good. I have some health goals too." This homeless youth program provided Jessica with "more focus and more stability, which is a very important thing to have. If you get those, then you can do everything else that you want." Jessica says that if she hadn't found the program she would still be out on the streets. Her long-term plan is to go to college and study sociology. "I want to help people the way they've helped me." Aaron was sleeping on the streets and a Street Outreach worker started talking to him, gave him a meal to eat, and information about a runaway and homeless youth shelter. Aaron never felt safe on the streets and he decided to visit the program the next day. Aaron was able to enter a transitional living program for youth where he felt safe for the first time in years and was able to achieve a GED. Aaron is in college where he is studying to become a teacher. Charlene received transitional living assistance from a runaway and homeless youth program where a case manager helped her find an apartment and pay her rent until she was stabilized. She received assistance in obtaining furniture and food, creating a budget, and managing her money. She has earned her GED and is working two jobs to live independently. "We need to focus on having an appropriate safety net for kids who do fall through the cracks because of poverty or abuse," said Auerswald, who co-wrote an editorial accompanying the new study. "The kinds of solutions that these children, adolescents and young adults need are not adult solutions," she said. "Tailoring them for a mini-me or smaller size .. . doesn't work." Instead, she would like to see homeless youth served in programs offering university-style housing, where they would be looked after, fed and not threatened with eviction. Braitstein believes that governments need to take responsibility for the care of their children. A lot of children "end up turning to the streets because they have nowhere else to go," she said. EFTA01183531  ****** So True Inline image I ****** There is a Big Difference Between a statesman, someone who is not and Darth Vader Inline image 1 EFTA01183532 In a recent interview with Fox Network's host Chris Wallace, President Obama said failing to prepare for the aftermath of the ousting of Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi was the worst mistake of his presidency. Since the overthrow of Gaddafi in 2011 rival militias have been fighting for control in Libya. What has made matters worse, ISIS has gained a foothold in Libya and the country has become a major departure point for migrants trying to reach Europe. This is quite refreshing for a sitting US President or any leader to admit that they made a serious mistake, which even if it does not affect them while in office, it most likely will be part of the narrative of their legacy. President Obama gave the brief but revealing answer speaking to Chris Wallace: CW: Worst mistake? Obama: Probably failing to plan for the day after, what I think was the right thing to do, in intervening in Libya. It is not the first time President Obama has expressed regret over Libya. He told the Atlantic magazine last month the operation went as well as he had hoped, but Libya was now "a mess". In that interview, he also criticized France and the UK, in particular saying British Prime Minister David Cameron became "distracted" after the intervention. It was a rare rebuke for a close ally and one which BBC correspondents at the time said angered Downing Street. On the other side, President Obama also told Fox that his biggest accomplishment in office was "saving the economyfrom the Great Depression". He said the best day of his presidency was when he passed the healthcare reforms. The worst, he said, was responding to the mass shooting at Sandy Hook elementary school. Mr. Obama discussed his legacy in a BBC interview last year, saying his failure to pass tighter gun control laws was the biggest frustration of his presidency. So I wanted to compare this with his predecessor and found that George Bush who in a moment of reflection the day before his departure from the White House in an interview, admitted that the decision to go to war against Saddam Hussein on the basis of flawed intelligence was the biggest regret of his presidency. The acknowledgment marked the first time that Bush has publicly expressed doubts about his rationale for going to war on Iraq. In the run-up to the war, the White House adopted a position of absolute certainty that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, basing its arguments on intelligence that was later exposed as flimsy and wrong. But the difference is that Bush's admission came with a caveat, claiming that the basis of flawed intelligence was the biggest regret of his presidency. "The biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligencefailure in Iraq," Bush told ABC. "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." But he also followed that moment of candor with an attempt to try to deflect charges that the White House misled Congress and the public to build a case for war, arguing that there had been widespread belief that Saddam had a nuclear arsenal. "It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington DC, during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world, were all ooking at the same intelligence." Still the Chutzpah Award has to go to Dick Cheney, who many say used the office of the Vice President to exert an enormous amount of political pressure on the CIA and other intelligence agencies EFTA01183533 in the run-up to the war to find WMD's, after being told several times that they couldn't find any. In his latest book, Cheney wrote that "history will be the ultimate judge of our decision to liberate Iraq." But just two pages later, as if unable to resist re-engaging the issue, they describe the late Iraqi president Saddam Hussein as a "grave threat to the United States" before concluding: "We were right to invade and remove himfrom power." Let's think about this, even if you accept Bush's argument that the decision to attack Iraq was based on flawed intelligence, and you double down by claiming that the decision was right, even after it resulted in a cost of an estimated $4 to $7 trillion, lives of more than 5,000 Americans, 200,000 Iraqis and at least one million refugees, as well as destabilizing the entire Middle East and the creation of ISIS — and you think that the decision was right — something is definitely wrong. And although in the exit interview Bush was in an unusually reflective mood for a president who has famousl Arycint refused in the past to admit any mistakes, he still wouldn't go so far as to say he would not have gone to war if the intelligence had been correct. And this is a major difference between Presidents — one who is statesman enough to admit his own mistakes and the other who refuses to accept, that like everyone else, he too has made mistakes... So those who support Donald Trump take heed. Screwing the Poor Again Trump and Ryan Agree: Let's Dismantle Social Security Inline image 1 Pivoting to the general relation, last week the presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump traveled to Washington, DC to meet with House Speaker Paul Ryan in attempt to bridge their differences and find a way for the Republican Establishment to support a candidate who has attacked everyone from Hispanics and Muslims to the President, former GOP Presidential candidates, John EFTA01183534 McCain and Mitt Romney and the Pope, while praising Vladimir Putin. Now seeking campaign contributions from wealthy donors and endorsements from the Republican establishment, Trump is now signaling his willingness to go after working families. To anyone who watched a Republican debate or one of Trump's rallies, he unabashedly proclaimed that he would not cut Social Security. Indeed, he explicitly contrasted himself with the other Republican Presidential contenders (all of whom, except for Mike Huckabee, support benefit cuts). Given that only 17 percent of Republican voters support Social Security cuts, this was an important part of Trump's populist message and likely a major reason for his victory. Now that Trump has clinched the nomination and is seeking money from the GOP's big donors, and support from the party's establishment, however, he has changed his mind — or at least his position. (Who knows what he really thinks?) Social Security has been a target of the Republican Party from the moment the legislation was introduced in 1935. It passed the House of Representatives essentially on a party line vote. (The telling vote was a procedural vote to kill it immediately before final passage.) In the 1936 presidential election, the Republican standard bearer, Alf Landon, vowed to repeal it if elected. In 1953, Republicans unsuccessfully tried to convince the newly elected Dwight Eisenhower to dismantle the program. (In a 1954 private letter to his brother, Eisenhower wrote about those who want to abolish Social Security, "Their number is negligible and they are stupid.") The late Republican presidential nominee and Senator, Barry Goldwater, was anti-Social Security, as was the late President Ronald Reagan, at least before he became president. And, of course, President George W. Bush sought to privatize Social Security. Revealingly, in a memorandum marked "notfor attribution," but nevertheless leaked, President Bush's director of strategic initiatives wrote about the effort to dismantle Social Security, "this will be one of the most important conservative undertakings of modern times." He concluded, "For thefirst time in six decades, the Social Security battle is one we can win." Paul Ryan and his zeal for cutting Social Security is in line with his Party's history. he was elected to the House of Representatives in 1998, these cuts have been his top priority. In 2004, Ryan pushed a plan to privatize Social Security so extreme that even George W. Bush called it "irresponsible." In 2007, Ryan became the ranking member of the House Budget Committee, and used that perch, as well as his subsequent position as Chairman, to draft yearly budgets that included massive cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. (In recent years, he has become a bit more politically savvy, proposing a fast-track process to force through cuts, without specifics, but his intent is certainly clear to anyone who follows the issue.) Ryan could not be happy that Trump pledged not to go after Social Security. Who would blink? Turns out that for all his bravado and bullying, it was Mr. Trump. He chose the perfect forum, the day before his meeting with Ryan. Pete Peterson is a Wall Street billionaire who has spent over 30 years and more than half a billion dollars on a crusade to cut Social Security. As part of that quest, he holds yearly "Fiscal Summits" where politicians and wealthy elites schmooze while nodding their heads about the non-existent debt crisis and the supposed "need" to cut earned benefits. This year, Sam Clovis, Trump's top policy advisor, attended the Peterson Summit. And what he had to say was music to the ears of the well- heeled conference-goers: A Trump administration would be open to cuts in Social Security and EFTA01183535 Medicare. The timing and location of this statement was no accident. Clovis's remarks took place in a room full of wealthy GOP donors, the day before Trump's much-anticipated meeting with Speaker Ryan. Trump's broken pledge reassured the GOP establishment that he was falling into line with right- wing orthodoxy. To those who have carefully studied Trump's record on Social Security, this seemingly abrupt turnaround does not come as a huge surprise. Back in 2000, Trump wrote a book in which he referred to Social Security as a "Ponzi scheme", proposed increasing the retirement age to 70, and claimed, "Privatization would be goodfor all of us." As recently as 2011, he said he was on board with plans to cut Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid — but that Republicans should be very careful "not tofall into the Democratic trap" by doing it without bipartisan support, or they would pay the price politically. Trump's position on Social Security appears to be whatever he feels is most beneficial to Donald Trump at any given time. For that reason, it's quite possible that now that he's reassured Ryan and the GOP establishment, Trump will be doing yet another about-face soon. His actions in the primary show that he understands that Social Security cuts are politically toxic. That math is even clearer in the general election, where only lo percent of Americans support cuts. But Trump has made it perfectly clear to anyone who might have lingering doubts that whatever he might say in the future, he can't be trusted as a guardian of Social Security. He is on the side of Paul Ryan, Pete Peterson, and the billionaire class — and against the American people. Wikipedia describes the social safety net is a collection of services provided by the state or other institutions such as friendly societies, including welfare, unemployment benefit, universal healthcare, homeless shelters, and sometimes subsidized services such as public transport, which prevent individuals from falling into poverty beyond a certain level. A practical example of how the safety networks would be a single mother with several children, unable to work. By receiving money from the government to support her children, along with universal health care and free education, she can give her children a better chance at becoming successful members of society, rather than be caught up in the hopelessness of extreme poverty. Comparisons between Canada and the United States, due to their proximity, is that a principal part of Canada's social safety net is its universal healthcare, known as Medicare, which was first proposed by Thomas Clement 'Tommy" Douglas (called one of the "fathers of medicare"); in part for this, in 2004 Douglas was voted The Greatest Canadian for his achievements and contributions to Canada. Supporters of a strong social safety net argue that these programs have resulted in a much lower crime rate and general lower poverty levels in Canadian cities, and this benefits everyone. While, critics argue that the taxes required to support the safety net inhibit growth and actually increase the barriers for socio-economic advancement, and that the safety net itself creates a perverse incentive to be unproductive and poor. The truth is that inequality, insecurity and persistent poverty threaten the economic well being of all Americans, and the recent Great Recession and protracted recovery have revealed that the U.S. social safety net is often not up to the task of assisting those in need. Even in good economic times, the nation's public social programs fail to serve all disadvantaged families equally. To get a clear picture of inequalities, we must grasp the differences in the availability and quality of help available depending on where citizens live. EFTA01183536 Many Americans believe that benefits for the poor are inadequate — but few are fully aware of how limited programs can be, and even less knowledgeable about dramatic differences in the likelihood of receipt across the U.S. states. The average level of benefits in the six programs that provide cash or near-cash assistance vary substantially across programs and states, and none of these programs provide adequate benefits because levels of assistance are set substantially below the poverty line. • The Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program is a good example. This program an average yearly benefit of $3,894 in the middle benefit state in 2013. This represents 22 percent of the official poverty threshold for a family of three with one adult and two children ($18,769). However, in the least generous state, the typical poor family received on average $1,873 per year, while in the most generous state a similarly poor family received $7,382 annually. • The average Unemployment Insurance benefit, while relatively more generous than cash assistance with an average amount per time period of receipt of $4,936 in 2013 in the middle benefit state, still only represents 27 percent of the poverty threshold for a three-person family. However, an unemployed worker would receive an average of $3,335 in the least generous state versus $6,894 in the most generous state. • Average spending per recipient is generally higher for programs that provide in-kind benefits or services — such as child care and preschool programs, or health insurance and employment services. But the level of spending in these forms of social provision also vary widely across states. For example, child care subsidies and early education spending are each more than $5,000 greater per child in states that spend the most and least on these services ($3,430 versus $9,390 for child care subsidies; $3,395 versus $10,431 for preschool programs). In addition to the inadequacy and differences in benefit levels across states, rates of inclusion — or the proportion of economically needy families and workers that receive assistance — are low and variable across states. Rates of inclusion of people in need of help vary greatly. In 5 of it safety-net programs we reviewed — cash assistance, early education, cash-based work assistance, child care, and housing — less than about one quarter of the potentially needy population receives any assistance in at least half of the states. • In the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the proportion of poor families with children who received cash assistance in 2013 varied from a low of 3 percent in the least inclusive state, to a high of 45 percent in the most inclusive state. • Similarly for Unemployment Insurance, the proportion of unemployed workers who received assistance in 2013 varied from a low of 17 percent in the least inclusive state, to a high of 61 percent in the most inclusive state. In 42 states, less than half of unemployed workers receive assistance. • Rates of inclusion for some programs are much higher. For example, in the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, over too percent of pre-tax and transfer poor families with children receive food assistance. This reflects the fact that the eligibility for this program is greater than the official poverty line. However, just as with the other programs, rates of inclusion vary tremendously across states — from a low of 8o percent to a high of 164 percent. EFTA01183537  Inline image 2 House Republicans attacking the safety net is nothing new. For years, Rep. Ryan has proposed federal budgets that would severely cut programs that serve the poor in order to pay for billions of dollars in tax cuts for the rich. Two-thirds of the cuts in Rep. Ryan's last budget plan would have come from programs that serve low- and moderate-income families, including a nearly i8 percent reduction in SNAP benefits. Some have lauded Rep. Among the Republican Establishment Ryan is supposed to be a "visionary," but there is nothing new about his economic agenda. His budgets come straight from the supply-side playbook, the failed theory of economics that says we should focus on the so-called job creators, reduce taxes and regulations on the wealthiest 1 percent, and wait for prosperity to trickle down to the rest of us. Not only have decades of experience proven this theory wrong, but new evidence in economics also suggests that the best way to grow the economy is to strengthen the middle class and reduce inequality — exactly what our safety net does. As a result, Paul Ryan's poverty solutions which he claims will lift the poor out of poverty are absurd. Real solutions should expand policies that have already been proven to work: strengthening the social safety net, making poverty programs better coordinated and more accessible to low income families, and improving job opportunities and wages across the board. And for Trump to now flip-flop on his promises to protect the social safety net of the poor which his supporters overwhelming support is just another instance — that he is a carnival barker who can't be trusted. As Nancy Altman wrote this week in the Huffington Post — The good news is, voters will have an alternative choice in November. Both Democratic candidates are strongly in support of expanding, not cutting, Social Security. That's is wise policy as well as winning politics. It is the position favored by 72 percent of the American people — and one that Trump has never supported. The same contrast can be seen at the Congressional level. 75 percent of House Democrats and 90 percent of Democratic Senators support expanding, not cutting, Social Security, while virtually no Republicans do. EFTA01183538 In recent elections, the Democratic presidential candidates have lost the votes of seniors. Probably not coincidentally, in recent elections, seniors could not tell who stood with them on the bread and butter issue of Social Security. All candidates talked about "saving" Social Security and the need for a bipartisan solution. This election, as long as the Democratic presidential nominee runs strong, loud, and clear, on expanding, not cutting Social Security, and revealing how untrustworthy Donald Trump is on the issue, Democrats should once again win the senior vote. And with it, the White House, the Senate, and perhaps even the House of Representatives. ****** This Fight Is Over Inline image 1 Dear Bernie: Thanks, but...I'm done. I'm not sure I've ever been more disappointed in a politician than I've become with Bernie Sanders. He was My Guy in the beginning. I really wanted him to be the real deal. I hoped for a year, that he would substitute sloganeering for actionable plans, and unfortunately I'm still waiting. As the months ticked by and his chances started to look noticeably slimmer, the tone shifted. It seemed to be impossible for Bernie and his supporters to accept that the majority of democratic voters simply did not have faith that he could accomplish all he was promising—The game MUST be rigged! Don't get me started on the various conspiracy theories. If nothing else, Sanders and his fans have certainly kept the tin-foil manufacturers in business. I truly loved how, from the beginning, he pledged he would not run a negative campaign... And this is where he eventually lost me. In the past few months I have watched as Bemie's campaign and supporters gladly accepted the same manufactured untruths that the GOP has been churning up for the past 35 years about the Clintons, and shared them with glee. In fact, they've even started adding their own unfounded smears to the catalog. I've seen a lot of negative campaigning over the years, but this one has been truly ugly. Even now, as his mathematical chances are blatantly absurd, I received yet another attack email from Bemie's Campaign Manager this morning, accusing Hillary Clinton of money laundering. As usual, there was no proof of actual wrong-doing, but apparently that's no longer necessary in what has now morphed into a win-at-all-costs approach. What exactly does "winning" even look like in this scenario? EFTA01183539 I've had numerous conversations with Hillary supporters who've tried to share pro-Hillary articles on social media (or even, god-forbid, Bernie critiques), but who had been so viciously attacked for it by Bernie fans, that they decided it just wasn't worth voicing their opinions. This bullying has been pervasive throughout the campaign, and all over the internet. The comments sections of articles have been littered with some of the most disgusting, misogynistic and hateful rhetoric you'll ever see, and Bernie has remained silent throughout all of it. I'm sure I'll garner my own share of vitriol for posting this, but it makes me physically ill to sit and watch these ongoing attacks. Sadly, it turns out that Bernie is not the Liberal Messiah after all. Of course we all should have known this, but so badly we had wanted it to be true. In fact, despite the sheer volume of propaganda generated to make Hillary seem somehow Conservative, he's really not much more liberal than Ms. Clinton after all. The truth is, their voting records show that they voted identically on 93% of all legislation sent their way. They both have long records of championing societal safety nets for those Americans who are most in need, abused, or discriminated against. There is a very good reason why Conservatives despise both of these candidates with a passion. Bernie Sanders is a very principled, though flawed, politician. The plain fact is, that I love most of the principles he voices, I just didn't trust that he'd be as effective at getting those ideals translated into laws, as much as I trust that Hillary will. What is at once charming about Bernie is also what makes one nervous about his ability to effectively govern. I won't print my age here, but let it suffice that I have witnessed decades of elections and the resulting governance from them, and anyone that has spent any time whatsoever observing politics, knows that effective politics is the art of compromise. This is especially true in our wonderful melting pot of cultures, ideals and opinions. In a nutshell, it's pretty much what our country was founded on. If you wish to be a politician who represents and accomplishes the goals of the constituency that voted you into office, you need to accept and learn how to negotiate and unfortunately compromise. At his age, you'd assume Bernie knows this by now, and yet he comes to all political interactions with the completely unbending attitude of a teenager. As though all compromise in life is for the weak. As though other people in the world might have differing opinions from yours, but they must either be wrong, or "sell outs". This is not the approach of a politician who gets things accomplished, and unfortunately it probably explains how Bernie has been in American politics for so long, and yet has authored and passed so little legislation. At this very moment we are witnessing a glaring example of a large group of politicians who have adopted this same attitude, this attitude of complete refusal to compromise, and ironically they are the people that Bernie rails against (when he's not railing against Hillary) — The Republicans in The House and in The Senate. Over seven years, all they've accomplished is a historic record of obstructionism. I can't even imagine how much more dysfunctional Washington could become with a President who might be just as intractable as the Congress they would have to work with. It's alarming and yet in this light, not surprising that, out of all his fellow Democratic Senators, who have worked shoulder-to-shoulder with Bernie for so many years, only one has actually come out to endorse him in this election. What makes me most sad though, is that Bernie seems to be rapidly tarnishing what could have been a wonderful legacy. He almost strikes as a different man from the one that started this campaign. Is it hubris? Frustration at the results of his labors? Bad advice? I really do hope that when people look back at this time, they don't just remember Bernie as "that old angry guy who almost pulled a 'Ralph Nader' in the 2016 election." EFTA01183540  Boo Radley @ *** Normally I don't print someone else's article or posting in this first section but this one truly articulates my own beliefs. Like many Liberal Democrats I was pleasantly surprised how much traction Bernie Sanders has received with Progressives of every age. And like many Progressives I love what he says and supports many of his positions. But like the above writer (Boo Radley), I began to believe that he is little to no different from the politicians that he rails against, when he accepted the bait from Chris Matthews and other liberal media darlings (looking for increased their ratings) that if he was a serious candidate who really wanted to win he had to employ the same tactics of lies, innuendos and disinformation perpetuated by Republicans against Hillary. Shame on you Bernie for becoming their tool.... I say this knowing that many of my friends who are Bernie supporters will be angered. But I also remember 2000, when one of my heroes (Ralph Nader) ran a third party bid that enabled George Bush and Dick Cheney to win the election. Or Eugene McCarthy who held out against Herbert Humphrey in 1968, enabling the election of Richard Nixon. Therefore to Bernie and his supporters, Hillary is 90 delegates (out of 939 remaining) from having enough to win the Democratic Nomination in July — making her the Presumptive Democratic nominee.... As such it is time for you to gracefully exit the primary and join ranks with Hillary and her supporters in a joint effort to defeat Donald Trump because there is a significant difference between the two candidates. Again my liberal friends Put your egos aside, stop regurgitating Republican talking points. Understand that Hillary is not evil, nor is Bernie a victim of the Clintons or the DNC's shenanigans. More importantly, without a doubt Bernie has a much better chance to realize his proposals with Hillary as President than under a President Trump who has promised to repeal Obamacare, wage war against immigrants, make a women's choice illegal, expand the military, gut the safety net for the poor and elderly, as well as making tax cuts for the rich a priority over raising the minimum wage Anything less than joiningforces today is my rant of the week.... WEEK's READINGS Plants Are Smarter Than You Think EFTA01183541  Inline image 1 Plants are not simple bystanders in the environment, soaking up sun and otherwise engaging in a passive existence. They're actually active communicators and engage in a complex relationship with their environment. Not only do plants communicate with each other but they also take steps to protect themselves from predators. About 200 plant species, for instance, manufacture a glue-like substance that attracts sand or soil. The resulting "sand armor," which is created in a process called psammophory, has been the subject of numerous theories. Some researchers have suggested plants coat themselves in sand as a form of camouflage or for added protection during sandstorms. Others have posited it may have to do with water retention or protection for radiation. New research published in Ecology has revealed what may be its true underlying purpose, however, which is to discourage predators from taking a bite. Plants Use "Sand Armor" to Prevent Being Eaten Researchers from the University of California, Davis studied two different plants that coat themselves in sand: the sand verbena and the honey-scented pincushion plant. In one experiment, they gently removed the sand from parts of wild-growing verbena plants then kept track of any damage from predators. They also added sand to wild pincushion plants and compared them to pincushion plants that remained sand-free. The results were quite revealing. The sand-free verbena plants had twice as much damage from herbivores than sand-coated plants. The sand-covered pincushion plants, however, largely escaped predation; only one out of 19 was eaten compared to eight of i8 that were sand-free. Next the researchers wanted to find out if sand's ability to EFTA01183542 camouflage the plant was making a difference. So they covered some of the plants in green sand, which would therefore make them stand out more in the environment compared to ordinary brown sand. No difference was found among the green- or sand-colored hues, which suggests the role of psammophory isn't to camouflage but instead is to deter predation. Music and Healing Energy Changes the Way Plants Grow If there were any doubt that nature is an active participant, and recipient, to its environment, consider the fascinating research that shows music and noise both influence the growth of plants. As explained in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine: "Plants are complex multi-cellular organisms considered as sensitive as humans for initial assaying of effects and testing new therapies. Sound is known to affect the growth of plants. Seeds are sometimes treated with ultrasound to help start the germination process ... Foliage planted along freeways to reduce noise pollution often grows differently than foliage planter in a quiet environment ... Sound vibration can stimulate a seed or plant." In a series of five experiments that used okra and zucchini seeds germinated in acoustically shielded, thermally insulated chambers, researchers measured the biologic effects of music, noise and healing energy on the seeds' growth. They compared untreated controls with seeds exposed to musical sound, pink noise and healing energy. The seeds exposed to music and those exposed to healing energy both germinated faster than the control seeds or those exposed to noise. According to the study: "This group of experiments indicates that both the musical sound and healing energy used in this study had replicable and significant effects on the germination of two different types of seeds when compared to an untreated control. The differences in germination rates between different conditions cannot be explained by mean temperature, temperature differences between chambers, petri dish position, growth chamber position, or persons scoring the seeds." Plants Warn Each Other About Pest Attacks EFTA01183543 Plants communicate with each other. When a plant becomes infested with a pest like aphids, for example, it warns surrounding plants of the attack via a network of mycorrhizal fungi. These fungi form a symbiotic relationship with the plant, colonizing the roots and sending extremely fine filaments far out into the soil that act as root extensions. Not only do these networks sound the alarm about invaders, but the filaments are more effective in nutrient and water absorption than the plant roots themselves. In research published in Ecology Letters, the mycorrhizal fungi were found to act as "a conduit for signaling between plants, acting as an early warning system for herbivore attack." Even more amazing, the warning led to systemic changes, particularly it caused the plant to increase production of volatile chemicals that repel aphids while attracting wasps, which are aphids' natural enemy. In bean plants where the researchers had removed the mycorrhizae connecting them together, the plants quickly succumbed to the infestation, presumably because they didn't rec