EFTA02716754.pdf

From: Gregory Brown Sent: Sunday, December 14, 2014 2:35 PM To: undisclosed-recipients: Subject: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 12/14/2014 Attachments: Ray Charles bio.docx; Untitled attachment 00073.docx; Untitled attachment 00076.docx; Untitled attachment 00079.docx; Untitled attachment 00082.docx DEAR FRIEND TORTURE: YES WE DID <=p> Tears Apart The CIA's Past Claims... Lied About Brutality, Effectiveness... T=rture Led To Fabricated Info On Critical Terrorist Threats... KEY FINDINGS... 'Well-Worn Waterboard'... Forced Rectal Feeding... 'Nudity, Ins=lt Slaps, Facial Holds, Walling, Stress Positions'... Waterboarding Sessions Brought Off=cers 'To The Point Of Tears'... OBAMA: 'Enhanced Interrogation Techn=ques' Were 'Inconsistent With Our Values'... CIA FURY: 'Too Many Flaws'= In Report... Feinstein: 'Far Worse Than The CIA Represented'... Her Remarks Live=.. FULL REPORT... The U.S. Is A Human Rights Violator Of The First Order Unde= International Law, A Rogue State That Has Explicitly Tortured Innocent People And Never Held Anyone0=A0Legally Respo=sible... 0=A0 On Tuesday the Senate Intelligence Committee rel=ased the highly anticipated 500-page summary of its report on the CIA's <=>post-9/11 torture program, providing a sobering glimpse into one of the darke=t chapters in the U.S. government's history. In the report, a product of a 5=year investigation, Senate investigators reveal sordid details of the systemic a=d individual failures by the agency personnel who ran the "enhanced i=terrogation program" -- the government's euphemism for systematic torture -- during the George W. Bush administratio=. The program involved capturing terrorism suspects and shipping them to secret overseas prisons, where they were subjected to techniques such as waterboarding. The CIA's program has long bee= criticized as un-American and a chilling departure from the nation's values. Opponents alle=e that it resulted in gross abuses and inhumane treatment of detainees, some of whom =ere eventually revealed not to have been involved in terror organizations:0=A° The 6,300-page report may be the most unsanitized official accou=t to date of the agency's program, which the Senate investigators say was misman=ged, poorly conducted and characterized by abuses far more widespread than the CIA previously conveyed to lawmakers. The newly released EFTA_R1_02157300 EFTA02716754 document tears apart the CIA's past claims that only a s=all number of detainees were subjected to the harsh interrogation techniques.=C240 But Senate investigators found that the CIA had actually kept 119 detainees in custody= 26 of whom were illegally held. And despite CIA insistence that the program was limited in scope, Senate investigators conclude that the use of torture was much more widespread than previ=usly thought. The study reveals several gruesome instances of torture by mid-level CIA officers who participated in the program, including threats o= sexual violence using a broomstick and the use of "rectal hydration=quot; in instances of harsh interrogations that lasted for days or weeks on end. And, contrary to the agency'=s prior insistence that only three detainees were subject to waterboarding, the Senate =eport suggests it was likely used on more detainees. The report cites the p=esence of materials typically used for waterboarding being present at certain =i>"blacksites," or secret prisons, where the agency had previously said waterboarding was not used.q=pan> Rather =han wrestling with the morality of the agency's torture program or the operation's damaging effect on the U.S.'=international credibility, Senate investigators instead weighed whether the agency's =attics were effective. Through narrative examinations of 20 separate detainee cases, the panel attempted to make the case that the use of harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding d=d not yield valuable intelligence. "The committee reviewed 20 o= the most frequent and prominent examples of purported counterterrorism 'successe=' that the CIA has attributed to the use of its enhanced interrogation techniques,=quot; Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), chair of the intelligence panel, said in = statement Tuesday. "Each of those examples was found to be wrong in fundamental respects." <=yan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serir> In some instances, the study find=, the information acquired proved irrelevant to stopping terror threats. In others, the use of the techniques resulted in detainees providing fabricated or inaccurate information, and in still other cases, the information obtained through interrogating the detainees had already been acquired through other techniq=es. Given that the techniques were ineffective, the study says, the agency routinely misled Congress and the White House wh=n it claimed that the use of torture did in fact contribute to intelligence victories. For instance, the Senate report pushes back against the CIA's argument that torture provided the information about Osama bin Laden's courier that helped the U.S. kill t=e al Qaeda leader in 2011. In a 10-page discussion on the subject, Senate investigators say the information that led the U.S. to bin Laden was obtain=d from a detainee while he was in foreign custody, prior to being subjected t= torture. The CIA, however, refutes these conclusions. In a roughly 100-page official response released alongside the intelligence panel4o=99s summary, the agency contends that harsh interrogation techniques were effective.=C240 "The sum total of information provided from detainees in CIA custody substantial=y advanced the Agency's strategic and tactical understanding of the e=emy in ways that continue to inform counterterrorism efforts to this day," the agency said in its rebuttal. The response argues that it's not clear whether the valuable information co=ld have been acquired by means 2 EFTA_R1_02157301 EFTA02716755 other than harsh interrogation techniques, although =he agency concedes that it's possible. "It is impossible =o imagine how CIA could have achieved the same results in terms of disrupting plots, capturing othe= terrorists, and degrading al- Qa'ida without any information from de=ainees, but it is unknowable whether, without enhanced interrogation techniques, CIA or non-CIA interrogators could have acquired the same information from those detainees," the rebuttal said. Still, the CIA is not advocating a return=to the use of torture during interrogations. Rather, it is most concerned with defe=ding itself against charges that it misled Congress and the White House about th= extent and value of the program. The official response vehemently cha=lenges the Senate's allegation that the spies acted outside the limits of what=the White House had allowed the agency to do. The agency has said that th= enhanced interrogations were part of a government-approved program carried out under express orders from within the Bush administration. <= class="MsoNormal">"The image portrayed in the Study of an organization that — on an institutional scale— intentionally=misled and routinely resisted oversight from the White House, the Congress, the Department of Justice, and its own OIG simply does not comport with the record," =he agency's response said. Among the Senate report's 20 main conclusions are tha= the CIA misled Congress, the White House and the Department of Justice, that the ag=ncy ignored internal critiques of the program, and that the CIA's use of th= techniques went far beyond the legal authority bestowed upon it by the Bush White House. In a statement Tuesday, President Barack Obama said, "=he report documents a troubling program involving enhanced interrogation techniques on terrorism suspects i= secret facilities outside the United States, and it reinforces my long-held view that these harsh methods were not only inconsistent with our values as nation, they did not serve our broader counterterrorism efforts or our nati=nal security interests." "That is why I will continue to use my autho=ity as President to make sure we never resort to those methods again," Obama added. "In carryi=g out that program, we did not always live up to the high standards that we set for ourselves and that the American people expec= of us," CIA Director John Brennan said Tuesday in his official respon=e. "As an Agency, we have learned from these mistakes, which is why my predecessors and I have implemented various remedial measures over the years to address institutional deficiencies.&quo=; The agency says it has no intention of revamping the current version of its interrogation program, which was curbed as a result of directives from Obama. "It is Director Brennan's resolute intention to ensure that Agency officer= scrupulously adhere to these directives, which the Director fully supports," the statement continued. "CIA has owned up to these mistakes, learned from them, and taken numerous corrective actions over the years. Further improvements to CIA practices continue to be made today as a result of our review of the SSCI Study," the agency's response=noted, referring to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the intelligence panel's full name. The document's release marks the conclusion of an =xplosive, high-stakes feud that played out between the White House's chief sp=ing agency and its powerful Senate overseers about how much of the report to release publicly. The 3 EFTA_R1_02157302 EFTA02716756 feud revolved around the executive branch's insistence that the committee redact the pseudonyms =sed to identify the mid-level CIA officers involved in the program. Despite = month's long fight, Feinstein was ultimately forced to relent and allow the pseudonyms to remain blacked out =n order to get her study's summary out the door before the panel's in=oming Republican majority takes control of the report in January. The study, which was =irst commissioned by Feinstein in 2009, began as a bipartisan effort with then-ranking member Sen. Kit Bond (R-Mo.)= Republicans on the panel, though, withdrew from the study just months after=it was commissioned. The document released Tuesday will very likely be the only portion the public sees of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report. Although Feinstein suggested in Ap=il that the full report would be released at a later date, Republicans are not likely t= seek further declassification once they gain control of the committee, given the=r opposition to the investigation. The study set the stage for a dramatic, closed-d=or dispute between the agency and Feinstein, which resulted in deeply personal jabs an= competing referrals to the Justice Department asking for criminal investigations. The CIA accused Feinstein's staff early this year of taking highly sensitive materi=l from the secure agency facility where the investigation was conducted. Feinste=n, meanwhile, insisted the investigators had a right to the document, and further accused the agency o= improperly monitoring the computers her staff used to construct the study.=C2. The Department of Justice declined to investigate either the CIA's or Feinstein's allegations. The CIA ha= since conceded that it did improperly monitor Senate investigators' compu=ers, and is conducting an independent accountability review board to determine what consequences, if any, its employees should face. The Committee makes the following findings and conclusions: <=> The CIA's use of its enhanced interrogation techniques was not an effective means of acquiring intelligence or Gaining =ooperation from detainees. =b>#4:c=pan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serir>=C240 The conditions of confinement for CIA detainees were harsher than the CIA had represented to policymakers and others=/p> #5: =he CIA repeatedly provided inaccurate information to the Department of Justice, impeding a proper legal analysis =f the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. #6: The CIA has active=y avoided or impeded congressional oversight of the program. #7: The CIA impeded effective White House oversight and decision-making. #8: The CIA's Operation and management=of the program complicated, and in some cases impeded, the national security missi=ns of other Executive Branch agencies. #9: The CIA impeded oversight by the=CIA's Office of Inspector General. 4 EFTA_R1_02157303 EFTA02716757 #10: The CIA coordinated the release of classified information to the media, including inaccurate information concerning the e=fectiveness of the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques. #11: The CIA was unpr=pared as it began operating its Detention and Interrogation Program more than six months after being granted detention authorities. #12: The CIA's management and operatio= of its Detention and Interrogation Program was deeply flawed throughout the progra='s duration, particularly so in 2002 and early 2003. #13: Two contract psych=logists devised the CIA's enhanced interrogation techniques and played a central role in the operatio=, assessments, and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Pr=gram. By 2005, the CIA had overwhelmingly out sourced operations related to the program. #14:<=span> CIA detainees were subjected to coercive interrogation techniques that had not been approved by the Department of Justice or had not been authorized by CIA Headquarters. #15: The CIA did=not conduct a comprehensive or accurate accounting of the number of individuals it detained, and held individuals w=o did not meet the legal standard for detention. The CIA's claims about the n=mber of detainees held and subjected to its enhanced Interrogation techniques were =naccurate. <=pan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serir>01=: The CIA failed to adequately evaluate the effectiveness of its enhanced interrogation techniques. #17: The CIA rarely reprimanded=or held personnel accountable for serious and Significant violations, inappropriate activitie=, and systemic and individual management failures. #18: The CIA marginalize= and ignored numerous internal critiques, criticisms, and objections concerning the operation and management of the CIA's Detention and Interrogation Program. Critiques, criticisms, and objections were expressed by numerous CIA officers, includi=g senior personnel overseeing and managing the program, as well as analysts, interrogators, and medical officers involved in or supporting CIA detention=and interrogation operations. #19: The CIA's Detention and Interrogation =rogram was inherently unsustainable and had effectively ended by 2006 due to unauthorized press disclosures, reduced cooperation from other nations, and legal and oversight concerns. #20; The CIA's Detention and Interrogat=on Program damaged the United States' standing in the world, and resulted in other=significant monetary and non-monetary costs. One of the worst myths offic=al Washington and its establishment media have told itself about the torture debate is that the controversy is limited to three cases of waterboarding at Guant4)=Alnamo and a handful of bad Republican actors. In fact, a wide array of torture techniques were approved at the highest level= of the U.S. Government and then systematically employed in lawless US prisons around the world — at Bagram (including during the Obama presidency), CIA black sites, even to US citizens on U= soil. So systematic was the torture regime that a 2008 Senate report concluded that the criminal abuses at Abu Ghraib were the direct result of the torture mentality imposed by official Washington. 5 EFTA_R1_02157304 EFTA02716758 American torture was not confined to a handful of aberrational cases or techniques, nor was it the work of rogue CIA agents. It was =n officially sanctioned, worldwide regime of torture that had the acquiescence, if not explicit approval, of t=e top members of both political parties in Congress. It was motivated b= far more than interrogation. The evidence for all of this is conclusive and overwhelming. And the American media bears much of the blame, as they refused for years even =o use the word "torture" to describe any of this (even as they called these same techniques "torture=E2** when used by American adversaries), a shameful and cowardly abdication that continues literally to this day in many of the mos= influential outlets. None of this has been in any plausible doubt for =ears. Recall that Gen. Antonio Taguba, who led an official investigation into prisoner abuse, said in 2008: "There=is no longer any doubt as to whether the current administration has committed war crimes. The only question that remains to be answered is whether those who ordered the use of torture will be held to account.Q=9D Gen. Barry McCaffrey said: "We tortured people unm=rcifully. We probably murdered dozens of them during the course of that, both the armed forces an= the CIA." Nobody needs this Senate report to demonstrate that the U.S. government became an official squad of torture (with the American public largely on board). I don't und=rstand why people are so outraged. We have known about rendition, waterboarding, sleep deprivation, forced rectal feeding and other forms of=enhanced interrogation for more than a decade. While at the same time one of the most popular shows on American television was "24" where Kiefer Su=herland as Counter Terrorist Unit (CTU) agent Jack Bauer routinely tortured anyone he deemed necessar= in a race against the clock to thwart multiple terrorist plots including presidential assassination attempts, weapons of mass destruction detonations, bioterrori=m, cyber- attacks, as well as conspiracies which deal with government and corporate corruption= We accepted his "ends justify the means" approach, regardless of the morality of some of his actions. So instead of asking ourselves why are these people attacking us? It is has been easier to cast them all as terrorist with us being the g=od guys eradicating cancer wherever we perceive it under an official policy we called — The War Against Te=rorism. And the definition of Torture is simple, "doi=g something to someone that you wouldn't want them to do you or your f=iends." And just in case you still can't figure this ou= feel free to go on the web link below.... An Illustrated A to Z of Torture Web Link:</=pan> <http:/=www.vice.com/read/an-illustrated-a-z-of-torture-cia-284> <=p> =span style="font-size:9ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serir> Krent Able, Words — December 11, 2014 — V=ce.com 6 EFTA_R1_02157305 EFTA02716759 Are These People =razy =1span> Are these people crazy? This was my initial respo=se when I read the article last week in the Washington Post by Nancy Scola — Uber'= not a $40 billion start-up. It's a mid-sized car company — and it is still my b=lief today. In its current round of fundraising, Uber was valued at =40 billion dollars raising $1.2 billion that it closed last week and supporters are claiming that this eye-popping figur= for a six-year-old ride-on-demand company isn't crazy because they claim that Uber8a1=9;s value is based on the bet that it will soon "become a meaningful substitute for people owning cars." Baffled</=pan> by this I s=oke with a knowledgeable friend of mine on Wall Street who not only agreed with me but told me that Goldman Sachs is telling its people that they are coming back to the market next year for more financing at an $80 billion valuation. Are these p=ople drinking Cool-Aid <=p> Uber launched in 2009 in San Francisco as a high-e=d car service. It existed to serve those who wanted, in the words of chief executive Travis Kalanick, a "baller&quo=; way of getting around the city. But somewhat by coincidence, that luxury service also happened to be a perfect match for how masses of people wanted to travel. Young people in the =nited States aren't driving nearly as much as they once did. That has put Uber in a posit=on to suck up some of the billions of dollars that people might otherwise pour into cars,=gas and auto insurance. "Uber's strength is that it has tappe= the mobility needs of a young generation of a networked people at exactly the moment their demands =re changing," says Anthony Townsend, senior research scientist at NYU=#39;s Rudin Center for Transportation. In part, Townsend says, that has to do with the =apid rise of powerful, Internet-connected mobile phones. According to the Pew Rese=rch Internet Project, about 80 percent of Americans between the ages of 18 and 34 own a smartphon=, and "they don't want to drive because they want to stare at their screens." Add in that more you=g people in the United States are moving into cities, where Uber's distan=e-dependent pricing is less painful than it would be in the suburbs. And the reas=ning behind this astronomical valuation of $40 billion is that as long as Uber keeps its customer service high and prices within reason, people will find it just as economical and perhaps more enjoyable to use Uber to get around than owning a car. With th=t in mind, considering Uber to be worth a mid-sized car company doesn't s=em so far-fetched. And they claim that there's more. Because they say that Ub=r today isn't just about getting yourself a ride. It's about getting your stuff a ride to =ou. In some of the 51 countries around the globe where it operates, Uber is =ggressively experimenting with flipping the equation so that cars and drivers are delivering everything fr=m packages to flu shots to kitten snuggles. "Thinking of them as a company that transports people from one place to another is one part of the story," says Sundararajan, pausing our phone call to get into an arriving Uber vehicle. "But you wouldn't come up with a 7 EFTA_R1_02157306 EFTA02716760 $40 billion valuation from just that. Their inv=stors are betting on a behavioral change amount where a lot of people are willing=to spend more than they do now to get things on demand." All of this=sound cool except that there is little barriers to entry for competitors, here in America such as Lyft, Zipcar or Ge=Taxi and abroad such as Addison Lee in London and Hailo a British new technology platform that m=tches taxi drivers and passengers through its mobile phone application and is fully available in New York City and has announced the launches of services in Madrid, the rest of Ireland, Barcelona, Washington DC, Tokyo and Osaka by t=e end of the year, as well as stiffening competition from loca= taxi and limousine=C2Qcompanies. Remember Groupon, the deal a day website that featured discounted gift certificates for restaurants, spas and other services and goods. Groupon launched in November 2008, and the first market for Groupon was Chicago, followed soon thereafte= by Boston, New York City, and Toronto. By October 2010 Groupon served more than 150 markets in North America and 100 markets in Europe, Asia and South America and had 35 million registered use=s. <=pan style="font-size:12ptline-height:107%;font-family:Georgia,serif5Th= idea for Groupon was created by now- ousted CEO and Pittsburgh native Andrew Mason. The idea subsequently gained the attention of his former employer, Eric Lefkofsky, w=o provided $1million in "seed money" to develop the idea. In April 2010, the company was valued at $1.35 billion. According to a D=cember 2010 report conducted by Groupon's marketing association and reported in Forbes Magazine and =he Wall Street Journal, Groupon was "projecting that the company is on pace to make $1 billion in sales faster than any oth=r business, ever". However, a report from Forrester Research in October 2011 suggested that the Groupon business model was a "disaster" and that the firm had become an example of how fast an Internet darling can fall. Since then Groupon has been acquiring as many companies as it can to stay alive as fewer and fewer peop=e are using its initial proposition. <=span> In fact some analysts claimed that Groupon =perates "like" a Ponzi scheme, according to interpretation of Initial public offering (IPO) documentation, because it has publicly disclosed that it is losing approximately US$100 million per quarter, has a net negative balance of $230 million, and is usi=g later investors' money to pay off earlier investors. But lets get back to Ube=. Because a $40 billion valuation is significantly more than that of Tesla ($28), Fiat ($16), Mazda ($16) and Subaru ($12). It is just $14 billion les= than General Motors and two-thirds of the value of Ford ($64) which is havi=g its best year ever. And please explain how Uber is worth more than half of BMW ($73) and in the vicinity of half o= the value of Daimler/Mercedes Benz ($90). The Uber model is that it k=eps 20% of the gross revenues with its drivers getting the remainder. Its most optim=stic projection is that Gross Revenues in 2015 will be $10 billion, which after cost would leave the comp=ny netting a little north of $1.2 billion or 33 times gross. =p class="MsoNormal"> And there are already signs of that the big auto =ompanies are getting into the game as competitors to Uber. BMW, for example, has l=unched i Ventures, a venture-capital wing inspired by the idea that "the emerging field =f mobility services is in a continuous state of evolution." That branch of BMW has already put money into a location-aware city 8 EFTA_R1_02157307 EFTA02716761 services app, the onli=e parking marketplace ParkatmyHouse.com and a New York City transportation start-up incubator. I remember in the 90s when Wall Street touted the notion that every dot.com chttp://dot.com= target=> would overwhelm the existing brick and mortar companies. And some did, but most didn't and although Amazon is currently values m=re than $157 billion, it has yet to make a penny of profit.... Yes Uber=is a good company offering a great product/service, but it is difficult fo= me to believe that Uber is really worth $40 billion but then if Amazon is really worth $157.5 =illion today, anything is possible Flooding, dangerous heatwaves, ill health and violent conflicts among=likely risks if the world keeps burning fossil fuels at current rates, IPC= expected to say Whatever deniers are saying Climate Cha=ge is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and lim=ting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero thi= century, the U.N.'s panel on climate science said this month. T=e fourth and final volume of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climat= Change's giant climate assessment offered no surprises, nor =as it expected to since it combined the findings of three reports released=in the past 13 months. But it underlined the scope of the climate ch=llenge in stark terms. Emissions, mainly from the burning of fossil fuels,=may need to drop to zero by the end of this century for the world to have = decent chance of keeping the temperature rise below a level that many con=ider dangerous. The IPCC didn't say exactly what=such a world would look like but it would likely require a massive shift t= renewable sources to power homes, cars and industries combined with new t=chnologies to suck greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. The report =arned that failure to reduce emissions could lock the world on a trajector= with "irreversible" impacts on people and the environment. Some=impacts already being observed included rising sea levels, a warmer and mo=e acidic ocean, melting glaciers and Arctic sea ice and more frequent and =ntense heat waves. "Science has spoken. There is no amb=guity in their message. Leaders must act. Time is not on our side,"=C2QU.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki- moon said at the report's launc= in Copenhagen. Amid its grim projections, the repor= said the tools are there to set the world on a low-emissions path and bre=k the addiction to burning oil, coal and gas which pollute the atmosphere =ith heat-trapping CO2, the chief greenhouse gas. "All w= need is the will to change, which we trust will be motivated by knowledge=and an understanding of the science of climate change," IPCC=chairman Rajendra Pachauri said. The IPCC was set up in 1988 to asse=s global warming and its impacts. The report released Sunday caps its late=t assessment, a mega-review of 30,000 climate change studies that establis=es with 95-percent certainty that most of the warming seen since the 1950s=is man-made. The IPCC's best estimate is that just about all of it is =an-made, but it can't say that with the same degree of certainty..=A0 And only a small minority of scientists challenge the mainstream conclu=ion that climate change is linked to human activity. 9 EFTA_R1_02157308 EFTA02716762 Global Climate Change, a NASA website, says 97 percent of climate scienti=ts agree that warming trends over the past century are very likely due to =uman activities. Yet the American public isn't as convinced. A y=ar-old survey by Pew Research showed 67 percent of Americans believed glob=l warming is occurring and 44 percent said the earth is warming mostly bec=use of human activity. More recently, a New York Times poll said 42 =ercent of Republicans say global warming won't have a serious impact, = view held by 12 percent of Democrats and 22 percent of independents. The rift between developed and developing countries in th= U.N. talks opened up in Copenhagen over a passage on what levels of warmi=g could be considered dangerous. After a protracted battle, the text=was dropped from a key summary for policy-makers — to the disappoi=tment of some scientists. "If the governments are going=to expect the IPCC to do their job," said Princeton professo= Michael Oppenheimer, a lead author of the IPCC's second report, they=C24>shouldn't "get caught up in fights that have nothing to d= with the IPCC." The omission meant the word &qu=t;dangerous" disappeared from the summary altogether.O=A0 It appeared only twice in a longer underlying report compared to seven =imes in a draft produced before the Copenhagen session. In its place=the less loaded word "risk" was mentioned 65 ti=es in the final 40-page summary. "Rising rates and magn=tudes of warming and other changes in the climate system, accompanied by o=ean acidification, increase the risk of severe, pervasive, and in some cas=s irreversible detrimental impacts," the report said.=/p> World governments in 2009 set a goal of keeping the tempera=ure rise below 2 degrees C (3.6 F) compared to before the industrial revol=tion. Temperatures have gone up about 0.8 C (1.4 F) since the 19th c=ntury. Emissions have risen so fast in recent years that the world h=s used up two-thirds of its carbon budget, the maximum amount of CO2 that =an be emitted to have a likely chance of avoiding 2 degrees of warming, th= IPCC report said. "This report makes it clear that if =ou are serious about the 2-degree goal ... there is nowhere to hide,"=C2t>said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocac= group. "You can't wait several decades to address this =ssue." <=span> U.S. Secretary of State John =erry said the report demands "ambitious, decisive and immedia=e action." "Those who choose to ignore or dispute the science so=clearly laid out in this report do so at great risk for all of us and for =ur kids and grandkids," Kerry said in a statement. The=IPCC said the cost of actions such as shifting to solar and wind power and=other renewable sources and improving energy efficiency would reduce econo=ic growth only by 0.06 percent annually. Pachauri said that should b= measured against the implications of doing nothing, putting "=all species that live on this planet" at peril. Bob Ward, policy director at the LSE's Grantham Research =nstitute on Climate Change, said the report made clear it was 4>=804>still technically possible to avoid dangerous climate change"= but that required emissions reductions would "on=y be possible if action starts immediately". "If str=ng action is not well underway by 2020, the chance of avoiding dangerous c=imate change will be very small, if indeed possible at all," =/i>he said. "I think there will be an international =greement in Paris next year, but the commitments by individual countries t= cut emissions will not be consistent with the goal of avoiding global war=ing of more than 2C." "World leaders may wait until =here is even more evidence of the damaging impacts of climate change befor= they accelerate action to cut emissions, but any further delay will incre=se the magnitude of the risks the world faces." 10 EFTA_R1_02157309 EFTA02716763 We are at risk of pushing our climate system toward abrupt, unpredictable= and potentially irreversible changes with highly damaging impacts. =arth's climate is on a path to warm beyond the range of what has b=en experienced over the past millions of years. The range of uncerta=nty for the warming along the current emissions path is wide enough to enc=mpass massively disruptive consequences to societies and ecosystems: as gl=bal temperatures rise, there is a real risk, however small, that one or mo=e critical parts of the Earth's climate system will experience abr=pt, unpredictable and potentially irreversible changes. Disturbingly, scie=tists do not know how much warming is required to trigger such changes to =he climate system while many deniers are now saying that it is too difficu=t and expensive. =/span> W=en was the last time we accepted "It's too hard=E240. as an excuse? Is that what they said in the U.=. when President John Kennedy wanted to go to the moon? Is that what=they said before the Iron Curtain fell in Eastern Europe? Or before smallp=x was eradicated from the face of the earth? No. In just the s=me way, we can't accept "it's too hardt=80. as a reason not to tackle the climate crisis. And the=fact is, the solutions are here, right in front of our eyes. Between=2007-2012, electricity generation from both wind and solar grew by=over 300 percent in the U.S, and are set to continue growing rapidly over =he next two decades. China is already the world's biggest in=estor in low- carbon energy, already has the most renewable energy installe= capacity in the world and is expected to invest an additional $294 billio= through 2015, to counter climate change. Further, the country recen=ly announced it will ban coal use in the dense, smoggy capital of Beijing =y 2020. The transition to clean energy won't happen overnigh=, but it will happen sooner than we think not because we =ant to but because we have to as anymore denial may take us over the tippi=g point. =nside the Nation's Largest Homeless Encampment Web Link: http://youtu.be/pQn1z2HBIrA Last week I did a segm=nt on the explosion of homeless children in America because the number of homeless children had reached a staggering 2.5 million last year, an historic high, according to a new repo=t released by the National Center on Family Homelessness. While during =he same week that the report was released in the city of San Jose, California at the 68-acre shantytown =b>The Jungle, just minutes away from downtown and the high-tech giants that made Silicon Valley one of the world=fB9;s most opulent locations city officials started evicting and shutting down for good. For years, the city turned a blind eye to "the Jungle." But the camp along the muddy bank of Coyote Creek h=s become more crowded in recent years and is awash in rotting trash, rats and human waste — so bad that the endangered steelhead trout have essentially disappeared. 11 EFTA_R1_02157310 EFTA02716764 The sprawling camp has become a major embarrassment, and a potent emblem of Silicon Valley's homeless crisis. In 2013, San J=se and the surrounding Santa Clara County estimated almost 7,600 homeless people, more than in San Franc=sco. And 75% of them were sleeping outside, on sidewalks, in parks and under freeway embankments — a percentage=greater than in any other major U.S. metropolitan area. Officials have blamed soaring housing costs for the displacement. As =ilicon Valley rocketed out of the recession, workers streamed in, driving the average apartment rent within 1= miles of San Jose up to $2,633 in September, from $1,761 two years earlier, according to the rental website RentJungle.com and the median home price is nearly $700,000. "The city really made a good-faith effort," said Claire Wagner, communications director for HomeFirst, which runs a homeless shelter and services agency in San Jose. But while 144 inhabitants have found housing, more than 50 have rent subsidies in han= but nowhere to go. In 2011, the state ended special redevelopment assessments, which essentially brought affordab=e housing construction to a halt, said Ray Bramson, San Jose's homelessne=s response manager. "Encampments are not the problem, homelessn=ss is the problem," Bramson said. "If you have 10 applications=to choose from, nine with stable rental histories and work, and you have somebody liv=ng in a creek; what are you going to do?" Loving added. Last week, some inhabitants of the Jungle were packing up to leave while others said they planned to remain as long as possible. San Jose poli=e and city officials hand out notices warning residents of the homeless encampment known as the Jungle th=t they must vacate the premises. Vp> As today's students face a world filled w=th global conflict, disappearing jobs, skyrocketing education costs, and increasing poverty in America, action is more crucial than ever. We know hunger and homeles=ness are increasing epidemics plaguing the United States — striking Americans of every =ge, ethnicity, and religion, hitting urban and rural communities alike. J=st last year, the national poverty rate rose to include 13.2% of the population. 1in 7 people were at risk of suffering from hunger in the United States. In addit=on, 3.5 million people were forced to sleep in parks, under bridges, in shelter=or cars. The combination of the high cost of living, low-wage jobs, and high unemployment rates only exacerbate these problems and force countless Americans to choose between food, housing, and other expenses. Studies show that money devoted to food is typically the first to be sacrificed. Families will ofte= pay their fixed payments first, such as rent and utilities, rather than pay=for food. Unfortunately, these problems will only continue to grow if our society does not make it a national priority t= address them in any systemic way. The homeless population includes people from al= walks of life: In the U.S., more than 3.5 million people experience homelessness each year. • 35% of the homeless population are families with children, which is the fastest growing segment of the homeless population. 12 EFTA_R1_02157311 EFTA02716765  23% are U.S. military veterans. 25% are children under the age of 18 years. 30% have experienced domestic violence. 20-25% suffer from mental illness. In urban communities, people experience homelessness for an average of eight months.=/span> People become homeless for a variety of reasons. =omelessness is primarily an economic problem, and is also affected by a number of social and political factors. 4r=A0The number of people experiencing homelessness exploded in the 1980s, as federal funds were withdrawn from low-income hous=ng and social assistance programs for low-income families and the mentally ill= Current federal spending on housing assistance programs targeted at low-income populations is less than 50% of 1976 spendi=g levels. Lack of Affordable Housing: There is a severe lack of affordable housing in the United States. The growing g=p between wage earnings and the cost of housing in the United States leaves millions of families and individuals unable to make ends meet. According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, families across the country w=uld need to earn a "housing wage" of $15.37 an hour, nearly three tim=s the current minimum wage, to afford a two-bedroom apartment at the average =air market rent. Even in West Virginia, the least expensive rental state in the country, a full-time wage earner would have to earn over $8.78/hour-$3 high=r than the federal minimum wage-in order to afford a two bedroom apartment.</=pan> Low Incomes: Many low and minimum wage workers cannot afford food and shelter. Over the past twenty-five year=, wages for the lowest income workers have not kept pace with the increase in living costs, nor the increase in salaries of those in the highest income brackets. The minimum wage has continually decreased in value since the late 1960s; adjusting for inflatio=, the current minimum wage is worth 27% less than it was in 1968. This =eaves the lowest income workers unable to afford necessities like housing, food and medical care. Lack of Affordable Medical Care: The cost of health care and insurance has risen dramatically over past years an= can cost a family up to $8000/year. For families living on low or middle incomes, this cost can be prohibitive.Q=A0 For families or individuals that lack health insurance, a sudden illness, chronic disease, or accident can be financiall= devastating. Political Factors: Cuts in federal assistance for housing programs and social services have coincided with the rise in homelessness in the U.S. During the 1950s and 1960s, federal housing programs and services nearly eradicate= 13 EFTA_R1_02157312 EFTA02716766 homelessness; however, during the 1980s, housing programs were slashed by h=lf and the homeless population in the U.S. began to grow. Programs designed to pro=ide a safety net for people living at or near the poverty line, like Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TAN=), have faced changes or cuts that often make it more difficult or impossible =or people at risk of or experiencing homelessness to access services. TA=F components like sanctions, work requirements, time limits, and immigrant restrictions cut many people off f=om benefits. Without a safety net to help, many of the lowest income people must choose between things like food, medi=al care, and housing to make ends meet. </van> Social & Medical Factors: While economic factors are the main causes of homelessness, long-term issues like mental illness, drug addiction, and alcoholism can exacerbate situations of poverty and put people at greater risk of homelessness. Surveys of people experiencing homelessness show that about 25% of the homeless population suffers from some form of mental illness; the high cost of health insurance leaves homeless people without access to proper care to treat mental illnes=. Drug and alcohol addiction affect about 20% of the homeless population who, again, often lack access to proper, affordable care for these illnesses. We can end homelessness in the U.S. by tackling i=s root causes-low wages and a lack of affordable housing-and by improving support services like TANF, housing vouchers, and health care. And as of the =tart of this week there were still people living in The Jungle, not because they want to but because the= have no place else to go. This is a shame, not only because it is =n one of the richest areas in America but because it is in America =C240 The richest country in the world.... A gravedigger at the cemetery of the Ebola treatment UNIT in Suakoko District in Bong County =p class="MsoNormal">The good news is that in Monrovia, Liberia (city o= 1 million) which had become the epicenter of Ebola with more than 100 new cases in August, patients dying o=tside of treatment units filled to capacity with bodies lay rotting in the streets and mathematical models projecting that Liberia would face thousands of new cases weekly by December, by mid November 2014 these grim projections have proven to be wrong. Although the Ebola epidemic is still growing in Sierra Leone and Guinea's numbers ar= swinging up and down, Liberia is now reporting only about 20 new patients a day. Treatment units have hundreds of empty beds, and Liberian President El=en Johnson Sirleaf has lifted the state of emergency put in place in August.q=pan> Now Liberia and the other affected countries face new challenges: rebuilding their shattered Health Care Systems, tampin= down local outbreaks, and looking for ways to drive the number of new cases to z=ro. 14 EFTA_R1_02157313 EFTA02716767 No one is quite sure what has caused the epidemic to =ane. Safe burials may be a big factor, says Katri Jalava, a Finnish veterinarian and an epidemiological consultant to the Wor=d Health Organization. It's a local custom to wash the corpse and then use the same water to wash the hands of the bereaved, she says. "In terms of a disease like Ebola that=is absolutely mad." Most agree that people's everyda= behavior has changed as well. Ubiquitous street signs warn that "Ebola is rea=" and tell Monrovians "Don't be the next ca.e." Outside many HOMES are small hand-washing stations with bleach, and Liberians have stopped hugging and shaking hands.=Yet "this is still a catastrophe," says Kevin De Cock, an epidemio=ogist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta. =EVEN 20 daily Ebola cases would have been unimaginable a year ago. And Guinea has shown that success in fighting Ebola can be short-lived: Twice, that =ountry was on the cusp of ending the outbreak, and twice the VIRUS came roaring back. Some have even questioned whether Liberia's r=cent drop in cases is real. At a meeting at the Liberian ministry of health last week, a U.S. Agency for International Development representative said he had been sent specifically to find out i= the numbers can be trusted. "Yes," answered Swedish statistician Hans Rosling, who has spent the past month in Monr