EFTA00861127.pdf

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: jeevacation@gmaitcom Subject: Fwd: Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 3/29/2015 Date: Sun, 29 Mar 2015 07:49:58 40000 Attachments: New_York_City_Could_See_Up_To_Six_Feet_Of Sea_Level_Rise_This_CentutyJames.docx; India Air Pollution Cutting 660 Million Lives Short By 3 Years AP 02.19.15.docx; docx; No_Evoluuon_Demers_m_the_Whate_llouse_Charles_Reid_Huff Post_02.19.15.docx; Deeper_Ties_to_Corporate_Cash_for_a_Doubtful_Climate_Scientist_Justin_Gillis Huff Post_02.21.15.docx; Map,_These_willbe_Europe's_most_polluted_cities_by_2030_By_Rick_Noack_TWPFebruary_23,_2015.docx; Why_We're_All_Becomingindependent_Contractors_Robert_Reich_Huff Post_02.22.I5.docx; Sea_Levels_Along_The_Nonheast_Rose_Almost_4_Inchesinjust_2_Yearsjames_Gerken_Huff Post_02.27.15.docx; Nat_King_Cole_bio.docx; Pope_weighs_in_on_campaign_finance,_but_will_he_go_before_the_FEC_Al_Kamen_&_Colbyitkowitz_TWP_03_11_2015.doc x Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; image(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; image(7).png; image(8).png; image(9).png; image(10).png; image(11).png; image(I2).png; image(13).png; image(14).png; image(15).png; linage( I6).png; image(17).png; image(18).png; image(19).png; image(20).png DEAR FRIEND Mike Huckabee, Scott Walker, Ted Cruz & Dr. Benjamin Carson Are they just Scientific and socially Illiterate or Hypocrites.... and Can We Afford Them Becoming President? Inline lnline Inline lnline image 2 image 3 image 4 image 5 As someone who lives in Los Angeles but will always see myself as a New Yorker, I was drawn to an article in The Huffington Post by James Gerken - New York City Could See Up To Six Feet OfSea Level Rise This Century: Report. From the recent Polar Vortex that ushered in record level freezing temperatures and the most snow fall since records were first kept there is little dispute that Climate Change is already impacting New York City with rising temperatures and sea levels, which will only worsen as the century continues, according to a report released Tuesday from a panel of scientific experts. In its 2015 report, the New York City Panel on Climate Change found that the most populous city in the United States is expected to see more frequent heat waves and extreme precipitation events. This is in line with the national and international trends other leading scientific bodies have observed. The city's average annual temperatures, measured from Central Park, have risen about 3.4 degrees Fahrenheit since 1900. From 1971 to 2000, the average annual temperature in the city was 54 degrees, and models predict a 4.1- to 5.7-degree increase by the middle of the century. Temperatures are projected to rise 5.3 to 8.8 degrees Fahrenheit by the 2080s. Sea level rise, however, may pose an even greater challenge for coastal New York. Average sea levels have risen about 1.2 inches per decade in the city since 1900, or about 1.1 feet overall, according to the new report. This is almost twice the average global rate of 0.5 to 0.7 inches per decade. This trend is expected to accelerate in the coming decades as greenhouse gas emissions generated by human activity continue to trap more of the sun's heat, warming and expanding the oceans and melting land-based glaciers and ice caps, among other contributions. The report's authors project sea levels around New York City will rise ii to 21 inches by the middle of the centurz, 18 to 39 inches by the 2080s, and up to 6 feet by 2100. The researchers noted that their projections are specific to New York Citybut projections based on similar methods would not differ greatly throughout the coastal corridorfrom Boston to Washington, " "It is virtually certain that EFTA00861127 sea level rise alone will lead to an increasedfrequency and intensity ofcoastalflooding as the century progresses,"they wrote. If sea levels rise to the higher end of current projections, twice as much of New York City will lie within the 100-year flood plain in 2100, as compared to 2013. At 6 feet of sea level rise in 2100, nearly 20 percent of New York City's 469-square-mile land area would have a r percent chance of flooding in any given year. A little under a percent of the city's area is currently included in the 100-year flood plain, according to a preliminary FEMA assessment released in December 2013. About 400,000 New Yorkers live within the current 100-year flood plain, which is more than any other U.S. city, including New Orleans. "Sea level rise is an extremely challenging problem that requires both greenhouse gas emissions reduction and adaptation measures to successfully protect vulnerable coastal areas," Princeton University professor Michael Oppenheimer, who contributed to the report, told The Huffington Post. "This report is a model ofhow technical information can support decision-making." "The report blends cutting-edge science with presentation of the information to policy makers in a risk-basedframework so they are in a position to use it to make key judgments about how to protect a cityfrom climate change," Oppenheimer said. Hurricane Sandy in 2012 demonstrated some of the challenges New York will face this century, particularly when it comes to adapting the city's aging infrastructure and transportation network. Flooding from Sandy knocked out power for part of Manhattan and the storm caused unprecedented flooding in the city's train and vehicular tunnels under the Hudson and East rivers. This week's report recommends that the city consider both mitigating climate change, through reducing emissions, and adapting to it. The authors advocate a multifaceted adaptation approach that uses engineering and existing ecosystems. Experts have previously cautioned that manmade "gray" infrastructure alone cannot solve New York City's resiliency challenges. "Adapting the cityfor the risks ofclimate change is one of the great challenges ofour time," Daniel Zarrilli, director of the mayor's Office of Recovery and Resiliency, said in a press release. The same day I read an article by AP — India Air Pollution Cutting 66o Million Lives Short By 3 Years — according to research published Saturday that underlines the hidden costs of the country's heavy reliance on fossil fuels to power its economic growth with little regard for the environment While New Delhi last year earned the dubious title of being the world's most polluted city, India's air pollution problem is extensive, with 13 Indian cities now on the World Health Organization's list of the 20 most polluted. That nationwide pollution burden is estimated to be costing more than half of India's population at least 3.2 years of their lives, according to the study, led by Michael Greenstone of the University of Chicago and involving environmental economists from Harvard and Yale universities. It estimates that 99.5 percent of India's 1.2 billion people are breathing in pollution levels above what the WHO deems as safe. Added up, those lost years come to a staggering 2.1 billion for the entire nation, the study says. While "the conventional definition of growth has ignored the health consequences of air pollution, this study demonstrates that air pollution retards growth by causing people to die prematurely," Greenstone said in a statement. For the study, published in Economic & Political Weekly, the authors borrowed from their previous work in China, where they determined that life expectancy dropped by three years for every 100 micrograms of fine particulate matter, called PM2.5, above safe levels. PM2.5 is of especially great health concern because, with diameters no greater than 2.5 micrometers, the particles are small enough to penetrate deep into the lungs. To counter this evidence conservatives and the fossil fuel industry directs millions of dollars to scientists who are willing to issue scientific documents for politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change that greenhouse suggests residual gases pose little risk to humanity. One of the names they invoke most often is WeiHock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy, can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming. But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon's work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests. He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. EFTA00861128  Inline image 6 SeoatorJoroes M. fold* o(Oklaboota prole* &loathe Me Dr. Soon. The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders described many of his scientific papers as "deliverables" that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress. Another example is the oil and gas industry enormous sponsoring and spinning a humongous amount of research to shape the scientific debate over horizontal hydraulic fracturing, or fracldng. That's the conclusion of a watchdog group's analysis of more than 130 documents distributed to policymakers by industry representatives. 'Research and statistics can be manipulated to say whatever the person using them wants to say,"said Robert Galbraith, an analyst with the nonprofit Public Accountability Initiative and co-author of the report recently released. Public Accountability Initiative, which describes itself as a non-partisan advocate of corporate and government transparency, receives some financial support from groups opposed to fracldng. Energy in Depth, the oil and gas industry's education and public outreach arm, presents its list of documents as evidence of the safety of a process that has been "closely regulated and extensively studied." The industry used the documents to persuade the Allegheny County Council in Pittsburgh in May to lease mineral rights under its Deer Lakes Park for gas drilling. Public Accountability Initiative's analysis determined that only one of the industry studies was both peer-reviewed and explicitly addressed public health concerns. That study was funded by the industry. Also on the industry's research list: retracted studies, industry PowerPoint presentations and blog posts. Omitted were hundreds of peer-reviewed scientific studies of fracking and potential impacts to the environment and public health. The oil and gas industry group responded to the Public Accountability Initiative accusations with an attack, alleging that fracking opponents are responsible for their own share of deceit, denial and deflection in trying to align research with their arguments. "This report comes just weeks after [Energy in DepthJ revealed that a research paper touted aspeer-reviewed science - - and used to justify New 'York's ban on shale gas development — was actually written and peer-reviewed by anti-fracking activists," Katie Brown, a spokeswoman for Energy in Depth, told The Huffington Post. So, who are the real liars and cheats? Teasing out the truth isn't easy for policymakers or the public. In fact, ifs a predicament common to a range of public health issues going back more than 100 years. Experts noted that a small but vocal number of scientists as well as some industry groups continue to borrow from a playbook first drafted by lead paint manufacturers in the early 20th century and expanded by Big Tobacco in subsequent decades. The tactics are chock full of legal and public relations tactics designed to preserve profitability, they say. Manipulated science can pose serious public health harms. Manufactured data, concealed conflicts of interest and misleading conclusions are evident in influential research on vaccination, organic food, secondhand smoke and industrial chemicals. And fracking apparently is no exception. Miriam Rotkin-Ellman, a scientist with the Natural Resources Defense Council, highlighted a 2013 industry-funded study that concluded living close to fracking wells did not increase the risk of childhood cancer. "'They used the wrong time interval to be relevantfor how long it takes childhood cancers to develop. Of course, they weren't going tofind any cancer,"said Rotkin-Ellman. She pointed to a rebuttal titled, "Obfuscation Does Not Provide Comfort," later published by two experts in the same journal that contained the original article. "Tliis is a common symptom of industryfunded science -- a set of conclusions that are not supported by the study as it was done," Rotkin-Ellman added. Another example of potentially misleading misinformation came in November 2014, when University of Colorado researchers published a paper outlining a technique to trace a subset of the components in fracking fluid so groundwater contamination could be identified in the future. They did not actually test for toxicity. But the title of the institution's press release declared, "Major class of:frocking chemicals no more toxic than common household substances." Media coverage followed the lead, and Energy in Depth declared that the research supported fracking as a safe technology. A study held up by the New York state health commissioner on Dec. 17, as the state announced its decision to ban shale gas development due to potential public health risks, has sparked controversy as well. The industry called the work a "violation" of the ethics of scientific research. The "anti-fracking activists" behind the writing and reviewing of the study, said Energy in Depth's Brown, "concealed their biasfrom the scientific community and the general public." EFTA00861129 But the real issue is the way this plays out in our politics and policies. With the 2016 Presidential campaign heating up over an unexpected issue -- the theory of evolution the anti-science wing of the Republican Party continues to voice skepticism. Apologists for this wing would dearly like to distract the media and the voting public from what is, frankly, a national if not a global embarrassment. In truth, the President of the United States needs to be scientifically literate. For the federal government has an important role to play and it is a role that will only grow larger and more complex in the next president's term. It has been a century since the theory of evolution has become settled, incontrovertible science. To doubt evolution at this late date is to reveal oneself to be willfully, invincibly ignorant of basic scientific principles. And there is no room in the Oval Office -- none -- for the scientifically illiterate. Politicians in both parties have been playing fast and loose with the facts or the fact that they don't know the facts. One of the latest examples of this former neurosurgeon Ben Carson who is currently weighing a Republican bid for the White House, who got a little confused about foreign policy and the origins of Islam during a recent interview on the conservative Hugh Hewitt radio show. Asked whether NATO should be willing to go to war if Russian President Vladimir Putin takes aggressive actions against the Baltic States, Carson said, "We need to convince them to get involved in NATO and strengthen NATO." Except that the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania) are already in NATO. Hewitt also pressed Carson on his understanding of Islamic history. After Carson traced dips, utes in Islam back to the biblical story of Jacob and Esau, Hewitt asked how that could be the case, when Mohammed lived in 632 MI. and the biblical story took place in B.C. Carson's excuse is that he doesn't want to get bogged down in the details, but if Carson and the other potential GOP candidates want to become President and Leader of the Free World, shouldn't the knowledge of nitty-gritty policy details be a prerequisite? Again, it is obvious: in a time of game-changing scientific breakthroughs, we do not want a scientific illiterate in the White House. We don't necessarily need a computer scientist. But we need someone who respects what support for research can accomplish. Yet the anti- science wing of the Republican Party continues to shout its opposition. This is not the place to review the science behind dimate change. Instead, lets talk a language that the Republican right-wing understands -- money. According to a February, 2015, news story: "Citigroup has set aside one hundred billion dollars tofund environmental projects over the next decade." The announcement added: '"The investment in renewable energy and energy efficiency projects is meant to help reduce the effects of climate change." Now, Citigroup is not some granola-eating hippie. It's a multinational investment bank strongly motivated by profit. And we are talking about 100 billion dollars -- that's billion, with a "B." The management of Citigroup seems to take the science of climate change as so well- established it is willing to invest many billions of dollars. This is not the time, in other words, to elect a science-denying right-winger to the Presidency. And we should be clear: The Republican field has a number of anti-science candidates. It is easy to pick on Scott Walker, the college-dropout Governor of Wisconsin who is busy degrading the capabilities of that State's once world-class university system. But we must include in the mix Governor Mike Huckabee, Senator Ted Cruz, and Dr. Benjamin Carson who should know better than to hang out with the anti-evolution crowd. Their defenders will say that they have to take the positions they do, that their base demands. And that is the problem. It is time for the Republican Party to confront the pathologies of its base A great place to begin -- is scientific illiteracy, as well as the hypocrisy of Politicians who refuse to acknowledge scientific fact. This Is Crazy EFTA00861130  Inline image S Inline image 9 U.S. military vehicles being paraded in Nan...Estonia. on Feb. 24th. When I was a kid we sometimes played a game called "chicken"where we would dart in and out of moving vehicular traffic and dare another kid to follow. We stopped playing this game when an off-duty police officer shot and killed my friend Terry after a confrontation because he pulled out a small pocket knife. The police officer was never charged for killing my eleven year-old friend, while several of us received severe beatings from our mothers to make sure that we never "played chicken" again. Knowing how dangerous and stupid the game of "chicken" is, we have to ask why on February 24, 2015 our military leadership and our President allowed U.S. military combat vehicles to be paraded through an Estonian city that juts into Russia, a symbolic act that highlighted the stakes for both sides amid the worst tensions between the West and Russia since the Cold War. In a parade no different than "playing thicken" armored personnel carriers, tanks and other U.S. Army vehicles that rolled through the streets of Narva, a border city separated by a narrow frontier from Russia, were a dramatic reminder of the new military confrontation in Eastern Europe. The soldiers from the U.S. Army's Second Cavalry Regiment were taking part in a military parade to mark Estonia's Independence Day. Narva is a vulnerable border city separated by a river from Russia. It has often been cited as a potential target for the Kremlin if it wanted to escalate its conflict with the West onto NATO territory. Russia has long complained bitterly about NATO expansion, saying that the Cold War defense alliance was a major security threat as it drew closer to Russia's borders. The anger grew especially passionate after the Baltic states joined in 2004, and Russian President Vladimir Putin cited fears that Ukraine would join NATO when he annexed the Crimean Peninsula in March last year. So why would we play chicken with the Russians and Putin by parading U.S, military vehicles within a throw from their border... Imagine the American outrage if Russian military vehicles were being paraded in the streets of Havana this week.... We Are Deceiving Ourselves If We Think That Americans Are Exceptional EFTA00861131  VA' Inline image 2 American millennials did not do well on this tat. Conservatives like to think of America as a Country of ExceptionaLs. Yes we have had our Abe Lincoln, Thomas Edisons, Jonas Salks, Muhammad Alis and Steve Jobs but there is a dangerous trend happening that says not only are we not exceptional, we may be mediocre. In an exam give in 23 countries assessing the thinking abilities and workplace skills of adults. It focused on literacy, math and technological problem-solving. The goal was to figure out how prepared people are to work in a complex, modern society. The U.S. millennials performed horribly. That might even be an understatement, given the extent of the American shortcomings. No matter how you sliced the data — by dass, by race, by education — young Americans were laggards compared to their international peers. In every subject, U.S. millennials ranked at the bottom or very close to it, according to a new study by testing company ETS. "We were taken aback,"said ETS researcher Anita Sands. "We tend to think millennials are really savvy in this area. But that's not what we are seeing." The test is called the PIAAC test. It was developed by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, better known as the OECD. The test was meant to assess adult skill levels. It was administered worldwide to people ages 16 to 65. The results came out two years ago and barely caused a ripple. But recently ETS went back and delved into the data to look at how millennia's did as a group. After all, they're the future — and, in America, they're poised to claim the title of largest generation from the baby boomers. U.S. millennials, defined as people 16 to 34 years old, were supposed to be different. They're digital natives. They get it. High achievement is part of their makeup. But the ETS study found signs of trouble, with its authors warning that the nation was at a crossroads: "We can decide to accept the current levels of mediocrity and inequality or we can decide to address the skills challenge head on." • The challenge is that, in literacy, U.S. millennials scored higher than only three countries. • In math, Americans ranked last. • In technical problem-saving, they were second from the bottom. ;`.1 !Wine image "Abysmal," noted ETS researcher Madeline Goodman. 'There was just no place where we performed well." But surely America's brightest were on top? Nope. U.S. millennials with master's degrees and doctorates did better than their peers in only three countries, Ireland, Poland and Spain. Those in Finland, Sweden and Japan seemed to be on a different planet. Top-scoring U.S. millennials — the goth percentile on the PIAAC test — were at the bottom internationally, ranking higher only than their peers in Spain. The bottom percentile (loth percentile) also lagged behind their peers. And the gap between America's best and worst was greater than the gap in 14 other countries. This, the study authors said, signaled America's high degree of inequality. EFTA00861132 The study called into question America's educational credentialing system. While few American test-takers lacked a high school degree, the United States didn't perform any better than countries with relatively high rates of failing to finish high school. And our college graduates didn't perform well, either. ETS researchers tried looking for signs of promise — especially in math skills, which they considered a good sign of labor market success. They singled out native-born Americans. Nope. They tried native-born Americans with at least one college graduate parent — a big group when compared to other countries. That didn't work. They looked at race — white and Asian Americans did better, but still fell behind similar top performers in other countries and below the OECD average. The ETS study noted that a decade ago the skill level of American adults was judged mediocre. "Now it is below even that." So Millennia's are falling even further behind. Most of all, getting angry because the President won't say that we Americans are exceptional is not going to raise our children's test scores if we don't face the fact that we are losing in education and continue to stay on the road that we are on. These Three Headlines Explain a Lot About What's Wrong With Politics Today Inline image Seasier A."o lbdrin oft/odd" "nal/await., MI5 Canon* kv E I() kr Sodn. I Ilar.nr..11apranit Fox News, March 3,2015: Rubio dines with Republican mega-donor Adelson Washington Post, March 4, 2015: GOP challenge: Cut taxes for wealthy, show concern for middle class Washington Post, March 5, 2015: Wealthy fans could lift Marco Rubio in 2016 campaign Earlier this month, Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) had dinner with billionaire casino mogul Sheldon Adelson who was in town for a few days. On March 4, 2015, Rubio and his colleague Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) introduced a tax reform plan. Analysis of a previous, but similar, plan found "that more than half the plan's benefits would go to the richest fifth of taxpayers, in terms of income. One-fifth of the benefits would flow to the top t percent of taxpayers, the analysis said. In percentage terms, it found, the average federal tax rate would fall by about the same amount for the top 1 percent as for the middle class." On Thursday, the Washington Post reported that one Miami billionaire has pledged to give up to $10 million to a pro-Rubio super PAC to help him secure the Republican nomination for president in 2016 and "among Rubio's supporters are a cadre of donors who participate in the political network organized by industrialists Charles and David Koch..." As Adam Smith wrote in his blog Early Voices: "It leaves voters with a depressing, real-life chicken or the egg riddle: which came first, the tax plan to benefit wealthy donors or the promise of cash from wealthy donors for a tax plan that benefits them?" Again Adam Smith: "These stories, as well as former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's announcement that he will cap donations at a comically large $1 million, come as a House committee moves legislation to end the broken presidential public financing system. Instead of giving big donors more power, politicians should be working to fix that presidential system and pushing bills like the Government By the People EFTA00861133 Act that would give candidates for Congress the ability to run for office on a blend of small donations and matching funds. Until then, voters won't care what came first, they'll just know it's not them." To think that these mega-donors are not expecting something in return is naive especially when politicians like Rubio are already doing everything they can to help these Fat Cats, in advance of formally announcing their own Presidential ambitions. So why not is there outrage or at least concern? Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: The NCAA The NCAA doesn't pay athletes because they consider them amateurs. The NCAA considers them amateurs because they don't get paid. Infirm image 1 Web Link: htUlliilin/thia3fialit We are currently in the middle of March Madness (or The Big Dance) which is the National Collegiate Athletic Association ("NCAA") men's tournament for Division i College Basketball, featuring 68 teams to determine a national champion. March Madness was created in 1939 by the National Association of Basketball Coaches and was the the idea of Ohio State University coach Harold Olsen. Mostly paid in the month of March it has become one of the most famous annual sporting events in the United States generating more money than either The Super Bowl and the NBA championships. But the maddest thing about March Madness is that despite bringing in over $1 billion in television ad revenue, student athletes aren't paid a penny because they're considered "amateurs"by NCAA standards. With this past Tuesday marking the first round of the year's biggest college tournament, John Oliver revealed some of the dirty practices of the NCAA on Sunday's "Last Week Tonight." What we learn: The NCAA has no intention of ever paying student athletes — despite bringing in more ad revenue than the Super Bowl and almost the entire NFL post-season combined and despite a former NCAA athlete letting it slip in an interview that "there (were] hungry nights where owl couldn't eat." The idea that these student athletics are being compensated with an education is ludicrous especially when many never graduate and those that do often have been given sham courses like the famed basket-weaving and Swahili, a language that they will never use, if in fact they ever learn it. But then how much studying can a student athletic do when in addition to classes they often have six plus hours of athletic training, in addition to traveling to games and meets. And is it fair that this same college athletic isn't allowed to receive any compensation including transportation costs for parents to see them play, while a number of college coaches are being paid millions of dollars a year, in addition to compensation from apparel manufactures, media companies, sport camps, speaking engagements and personal appearances which can often add up to more money than their multi-million yearly coaching salaries. In many colleges, coaches are the highest paid people at their their campuses, while student-athletics are forbidden any compensation whatsoever, including the use of their images after leaving the institutions. EFTA00861134  lineimage, Less than 2% of college football and basketball college athletics go pro and in other college sports that number is considerably less if at all. The term student-athletic was crafted by the first Executive Director of the NCAA stated that "We crafted the term Student-Athletic in the issos explicitly to avoid worker's compensation for injured athletics" and 6o years later that term is still working. The means that when student athletics get injured which happens a lot and can't continue to play for their college, they often lose their scholarships and many are saddled with huge medical bills for years and often for their entire lives. Whereas if they played under workmen's comp their medical bills associated with their college injury would be taken care for the rest of their lives. Without a doubt college sports are often about exploiting people, especially in the major universities with huge basketball and football programs. As Oliver said, no one is saying that that they need to be paid millions, or hundreds of thousands or the same amount or even that every school needs to pay every athletic. But to pay everyone zero when the kid selling their jersey at the campus bookstore is getting Sic an hour seems a little bit strange." The truth is that college sports, especially in the major colleges and universities is not about the romance of amateurism when these institutions are generating hundreds of millions of dollars, paying coaches and athletic administrators hundreds of thousands and sometime millions of dollars a year, while the athletics receive no financial compensation and most likely will lose their scholarship should they get injured or cut from the team. And as Oliver suggests, they should give up the sponsorships and the TV deals, stop paying the coaches professional salaries and have teams run by professors. Most of all, lets stop the exploitation of our young athletes and if they are student athletics please make sure that education is their top priority, if not then pay them.... and this is nay rant of the week... WEEK's READINGS This Is Serious Sc, Levels Along The Northeast Rose Almost q Inches In Just 2 Years: Study lane Image I We have a problem.... Sea levels across the Northeast coast of the United States rose nearly 3.9 inches between 2009 and 2010, according to a new study from researchers at the University of Arizona and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The waters near Portland, Maine, saw an even greater rise — s inches — over the two-year period. While scientists have been observing higher sea levels across the globe in recent decades, the study found a much more extreme rise than previous avenges. Such an event is "unprecedented" in the history of the tide gauge record, according to the researchers, and represents a i-in-Sso year event. The analysis relied on data from dozens of tide gauges along the eastern seaboard. The nearly 4-inch rise for the Northeast represents the average of 14 tide gauges located between New York and Canada. Tide gauges farther south in the Mid-Atlantic and Southeast indicated a EFTA00861135 sea level rise far less extreme in 2009 and closer to average in some areas. The jump occurred most quickly between April 2009 and March 2010. The study found that the increase in the Northeast was caused by a 30 percent slowdown in a major ocean current system known as the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation (AMOC) and a fluctuation in atmospheric pressure at sea level. The Gulf Steam is one component of the AMOC, which moves warm water northward in the upper levels of the Atlantic. A 2014 study of the AMOC over that period found the slowdown also contributed to severe winter conditions in northwestern Europe and the intensity of the 2010 Atlantic hurricane season, which was the third-most active on record. The M.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate wrote in its latest report that AMOC currents are "very likely" to weaken in the 21st century. Models project that unusual rises in sea level, like that observed in the study, will be bigger and more frequent along the Northeastern seaboard this century, study coauthor Jianjun Yin told The Huffington Post. And events like the one observed in the study, combined with ongoing global sea level rise, "will pose an even higher coastal flooding risk," Yin told Mashable. A 2012 study determined that sea levels between North Carolina and Boston are rising at a rate three to four times faster than the global average. Yet this only represents a rise of 2 to 3.7 millimeters per year since 1980, far less than the 100 millimeters observed in the Northeast between 2009 and 2010. This week's study, published in Nature Communications, follows a new report from the New York City Panel on Climate Change that warns of significant sea level rise and coastal flooding threats for the city in coming decades. Sea levels in New York City have already risen more than a foot since 1900, and the trend is very likely to accelerate: If greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are not curtailed, the panel projects seas to rise by an additional 11 to 21 inches by the middle of the century, by IS to 39 inches by the 2080s, and by as much as 6 feet by the end of the century. And if you don't see that this is a serious problem.... I can't help you.... An Israeli Election Turns Ugly Israel's election has done a lot to reveal the challenges facing the country and the intentions of the men who seek to lead it. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's outright rejection of a Palestinian state and his racist rant against Israeli Arab voters on Tuesday showed that he has forfeited any claim to representing all Israelis. Mr. Netanyahu, with two years to go in his current term, called the election in December for reasons that are still unclear. He expected to win an easy victory and then ended up fighting for his political life in a bitter battle with Isaac Herzog, the leader of the new center-left Zionist Union alliance and son of a former Israeli president. With 99.3 percent of the ballots counted, the YNet news site reported Wednesday morning that Mr. Netanyahu's Likud Party had possibly won 30 seats in the Knesset and Mr. Herzog's Zionist Union had got 24 seats. While Mr. Netanyahu ended up with more seats, it is Israel's president, Reuven Rivlin, who will decide which leader gets to cobble together the next coalition government, the norm in a multiparty state where no one party has ever won an outright majority in the 120- member Knesset The process could take six weeks, and religious parties are likely to hold the key to victory, an asset for Mr. Netanyahu. Mr. Netanyahu showed that he was desperate, and craven, enough to pull out all the stops. On Monday, he promised that if his Likud faction remained in power, he would never allow the creation of a Palestinian state, thus repudiating a position he had taken in 2009. His behavior in the past six years — aggressively building Israeli homes on land that likely would be within the bounds of a Palestinian state and never engaging seriously, in negotiations — has Ion; convinced many people that he has no interest in a peace agreement But his statement this week laid bare his duplicity, confirmed Palestinian suspicions and will make it even harder for him to repair his poisoned relations with President Obama, who has invested heavily in pushing a twostate solution. Mr. Netanyahu added to the ugliness of the campaign when, during Tuesday's voting, he said in a video on social media: "Rightwing rule is in danger. Arab voters are streaming in huge quantities to the polling stations." This outrageous appeal to hardline voters implied that only he could save Israel from its enemies, including the country's Arab citizens, who represent 20 percent of the population and have long been discriminated against. There were signs that Arab Israelis were turning out in somewhat higher numbers, apparently to vote for the Joint Arab List, a coalition of four small parties. EFTA00861136 Mr. Netanyahu's demagogy further incites the rage that has torn the country apart. There were other inflammatory moments in recent days. Mr. Netanyahu claimed that nefarious foreign sources were trying to overthrow him and also promised to build more settlements, which most of the world considers to be illegal. Earlier this month, he made a subversive speech before Congress to castigate the Obama administration for seeldng a nuclear deal with Iran, but that seems to have done little to enhance his support in Israel. In his desperation, M r. Netanyahu resorted to fearmongering and antiArab attacks while failing to address the issues that Israelis said they were most worried about, namely the high cost of housing and everyday living in Israel. Although the economy has grown, the country has experienced widening income disparities and is now one of the most unequal societies in the advanced world. Mr. Herzog made such domestic concerns a centerpiece of his campaign. While peace talks with the Palestinians were not a major focus of the Zionist Union campaign, or the election generally, he made clear that if elected he would try to restart negotiations. Late Tuesday, Mr. Rivlin said he would work for a national unity government with Likud and the Zionist Union. It is difficult to see how Mr. Netanyahu could find enough common ground with any moderate faction to govern constructively. NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD -MARCH 17.20$ Pope Weighs In On Campaign Finance lagne Image I ate team.. Hem the Ika.•(p.Ah isuvrawnfinaircenR I love this new Pope. As we know Pope Francis has made his opinion known on a variety of hot-button issues, including Cuba, gay rights and climate change. Now he's sharing his thoughts on campaign finance. His belief? Separate special-interest money from politics. His comments, reported by Crux, a publication covering the Roman Catholic Church, caught the attention of Ellen Weintraub, a commissioner on the Federal Election Commission, who mentioned it before the panel's meeting Tuesday. They joked that maybe the pope would like to come testify at an FEC hearing. Discussing the general elections this fall in Argentina, his home country, he called for a "free, unfinanced campaign." "In thefinancing of electoral campaigns, many interests get into the mix, and then they send you the bill,"Francis said in answering questions last month, according to Crux. Perhaps publicfinancing would allowfor me, the citizen, to know that.financing each candidate with a given amount ofmoney,"he said. Everything needs to be transparent and clean." The pope is planning a visit to Washington this fall and has accepted an invitation to address Congress. Perhaps he'll share his thoughts on campaign finance with American politicians deep in the throes of an expected multibillion-dollar presidential campaign? For what it's worth, the CatholicVote.org super PAC, one of many Catholic-affiliated political committees, spent $293,335 in the 2012 campaign, according to OpenSecrets.org. Still, this is just another reason why I so love this new Pope and another voice that believes that big money is corrupting the democratic process in spite of what the U.S. Supreme Court decrees. Why We're All Becoming Independent Contractors EFTA00861137  VA' Inline image 4 Robert Reich: GM is worth around $60 billion, and has over 200,000 employees. Its front-line workers earn from $19 to $28.50 an hour, with benefits. Uber is estimated to be worth some $40 billion, and has 8so employees. Uber also has over 163,000 drivers (as of December -- the number is expected to double by June), who average $17 an hour in Los Angeles and Washington, •., and $23 an hour in San Francisco and New York But Uber doesn't count these drivers as employees. Uber says they're "independent contractors." What difference does it make? For one thing, GM workers don't have to pay for the machines they use. But Uber drivers pay for their cars — not just buying them but also their maintenance, insurance, gas, oil changes, tires, and cleaning. Subtract these costs and Uber drivers hourly pay drops considerably. For another, GM's employees get all the nation's labor protections. These include Social Security, a 4o-hour workweek with time-and-a- half for overtime, worker health and safety, worker's compensation if injured on the job, family and medical leave, minimum wage, pension protection, unemployment insurance, protection against racial or gender discrimination, and the right to bargain collectively. Not to forget Obamacare's mandate of employer-provided health care. Uber workers don't get any of these things. They're outside the labor laws. Uber workers aren't alone. There are millions like just them, also outside the labor laws -- and their ranks are growing. Most aren't even part of the new Uberized "sharing" economy. They're franchisees, consultants, and free lancers. They're also construction workers, restaurant workers, truck drivers, office technicians, even workers in hair salons. What they all have in common is they're not considered "employees" of the companies they work for. They're "independent contractors"-- which puts all of them outside the labor laws, too. The rise of "independent contractors" is the most significant legal trend in the American workforce -- contributing directly to low pay, irregular hours, and job insecurity. What makes them "independent contractors" is the mainly that the companies they work for say they are. So those companies don't have to pick up the costs of having full-time employees. But are they really "independent"? Companies can manipulate their hours and expenses to make them seem so. It's become a race to the bottom. Once one business cuts costs by making its workers "independent contractors," every other business in that industry has to do the same -- or face shrinking profits and a dwindling share of the market. Some workers prefer to be independent contractors because that way they get paid in cash. Or they like deciding what hours they'll work. Mostly, though, they take these jobs because they can't find better ones. And as the race to the bottom accelerates, they have fewer and fewer alternatives. Fortunately, there are laws against this. Unfortunately, the laws are way too vague and not well-enforced. For example, FedEx calls its drivers independent contractors. Yet FedEx requires them to pay for the FedEx-branded trucks they drive, as well as the FedEx uniforms they wear, and FedEx scanners they use — along with insurance, fuel, tires, oil changes, meals on the road, maintenance, and workers compensation insurance. If they get sick or need a vacation, they have to hire their own replacements. They're even required to groom themselves according to FedEx standards. FedEx doesn't tell its drivers what hours to work, but it tells them what packages to deliver and organizes their workloads to ensure they work between 9.5 and it hours every working day. If this isn't employment," I don't know what the word means. In 2005, thousands of FedEx drivers in California sued the company, alleging they were in fact employees and that FedEx owed them the money they shelled out, as well as wages for all the overtime work they put in. last summer, a federal appeals court agreed, finding that under California law -- which looks at whether a company "controls" how a job is done along with a variety of other criteria to determine the real employment relationship -- the FedEx drivers were indeed employees, not independent contractors. Does that mean Uber drivers in California are also "employees"? That case is being considered right now. What about FedEx drivers and Uber drivers in other states? Other truck drivers? Construction workers? Hair salon workers? The list goes on. The law is still up in the air. Which means the race to the bottom is still on. It's absurd to wait for the courts to decide all this case-by-case. We need a simpler test for determining who's an employer and employee. EFTA00861138 Robert Reich: Any corporation that accounts for at least 80 percent or more of the pay someone gets, or receives from that worker at least 20