DS9 Document EFTA01133119

From: To: Bce: Subject: Date: Attachments: Gregory Brown < undisclosed-recipients:; [email protected] Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 03/09/2014 Sun, 09 Mar 2014 09:20:39 +0000 Human_activities_are_changing_the climate Royal Academies of_ Science February_201 4.docx; The_Clear_Benefits of_a_HIgher_Wige_EdTitorial Boar] lYT_02 9 9_2014.docx; Why_Americans_Are_So_Folarized,Education and Evolution_Avi_TuschTnan_Feb._28,2 014.docx; Fixing_Inequality_Won't Hurt_the_Economy_MATTHEW_O'BRIEN The_Atlantic March 3„2014.docx; Putints Sixongman_Act_Is_A_Sign_Of_Weakness_AgDY_BORONCTITZ- ethe_New Yorker_03_54_2014.docx; Obama_balget_seeks_new_spending new taxes to boost economy„tame_debt_Zachary_ Goldfarb TWP 03 04 2014.docx• The_two charts_you_need_to_see_to_tmderstand_Obama_Christopheringraham_TWP_03 04 20 Ittdocx; Putin's_ error_ in_ Ukraine_is_the_kind_that_leads_to_catastrophe_David_Ignatius_TWP_Ma rch_2,_2014.docx; How the Ukraine crisis_ends_Hemy_Kissinger_TWP_03_06_2014.docx; Herbie 1-fancock cio.docx 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 DEAR FRIEND Nye I urge everyone two take two minutes to watch this video of Bill Nye (who recently teamed up with Bill and Melinda Gates), taking a whack at dispelling the myths surrounding child mortality and foreign aid by taking a cursory look at data you can see how and why kids are dying and how to reduce and prevent it. The average American perceives that the US spends a lot (25%) on foreign aid when the truth is that it only spend .8% (less than a penny out of each dollar) of its budget and much of this is either debt relief or military support. The idea that wars, tsunamis, earthquakes and other natural disasters kill most of the people is wrong as these numbers pale in comparison to the numbers of people who are killed by preventable diseases. Bill Nye Gets A Bit Somber But Knocks Out Some World Poverty Myths In 2 Minutes — Web Link: http://youtu.be/UL4zoo8xijc For example only 6% of kids five years old or younger die each year from accidents/injuries, whereas of kids five years old or younger die every year from non-communicable diseases (cancer or things you inherit), while the remaining 83% die each year from communicable preventable diseases. And if EFTA01133119 we address this we can change the world. One of the biggest myths is that many people believe that we have been giving money to Africa and nothing has improved and things are as bad as they ever were. That's a myth, as data shows that child mortality has been cut in half in recent years. Therefore we have a real opportunity to dispel these myths and leave the world better than we found it, improving the quality of life for people everywhere by aggressively addressing preventable diseases. William Sanford "Bill" Nye (born November 27, 1955), popularly known as Bill Nye the Science Guy, is an American science educator, comedian, television host, actor, writer, and scientist who began his career as a mechanical engineer at Boeing. He is best known as the host of the Disney/PBS children's science show Bill Nye the Science Guy (1993-98) and for his many subsequent appearances in popular media as a science educator. For more information please feel free to link on http://www.upworthy.com/a11-7-billion to read a special Upworthy series about global health and poverty sponsored by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Inescapable truths THE National Academies of Science (NAS) and the Royal Society — the elite scientific fellowships of America and Britain, respectively, respectively — released today a rather handy "Frequently Asked Questions" resource on climate change. We know the media doesn't like to talk about climate change much, but this latest case of global warming denial has taken things to a new level. CNBC's Joe Kernen said last Thursday morning that climate change and higher temperatures in January were likely not a result of increased CO2, but rather of something more inexplicable. "It's almost like witchcraft," Kernen said. "In the middle ages it was witchcraft. You would have attributed adverse weather events to witchcraft." Despite data that shows climate scientists are 95 percent sure that humans have caused at least "half of the observed increase in global average surface temperatures since the 1950s," Kemen continued to deny such a cause-and-effect relationship. Kemen defended a recent claim that "the earth's geologic history fundamentally contradicts CO2 climate fears," using the argument that there were warmer temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 levels were significantly higher than today. "The climate is so difficult to figure out," he said. Kernen has criticized climate science publicly before, and also used the word "witch" on Twitter in September when referring to the work of climate scientists: @gregladen yeeks, rough week for the alarmists. At least no record for hurricanes. Whew! More Republican dispatches from "the bubble." And when are these deniers going to learn the difference between Weather and Climate Change? Global Warming Basics from the U.S. and British Science Academies EFTA01133120 0.5°C „„ -orc v tvs E 2 0.5°C 0°C -0.5°C 30-year average 10-year average 0.5•C ro 01 t g -o.sx s3g n —4 42 E.: ea 0.5'C - crc zi; 60.year average 1850 1900 1950 2800 -0.5°C The National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, The Royal Society, have published "Climate Change: Evidence and Causes," a fresh primer on greenhouse-driven global warming that is a useful update on past reports from both organizations. You can find helpful summaries of the findings on the National Academy of Sciences website. Web Link: hnp://dels.nas.edukesourcesistatic-assets/exec-office•other/climate-change-full.pdf There's also streaming (and ultimately archived) video of some academy scientists discussing the report and a panel discussion run by the talented and relentlessly determined Miles O'Brien, the longtime television science reporter who recently wrote a wrenching and inspiring piece on an accident that resulted in the amputation of his left arm earlier this month. Also, please feel free to read the attached article Human Activities Are Changing the Climate -- by The National Academies. ****** Last week I was in my doctor's waiting room watching Fox News with interest (because I don't watch it at home) and was amazed of its Conservative pundits accusing President Obama of being weak on EFTA01133121 defense and out to destroy the country's prestige because Secretary Defense Chuck Hagel cutting the military budget, closing bases, getting rid of unwanted military hardware and reshaping forces to meet the new challenges currently facing the country and into the future. What seemed logical to me, since we are more likely to be attached by a terrorist cell trying to pollute our water supply, bomb Times Square or ram another American destroyer stationed off the coast of a country in the Middle East then a land attack by Russian tanks, jet fighter dogfight with Iranian air force or a nuclear missile from North Korea or China. So then why are some much of our military arsenal deployed to contain these potential scenarios? But what really amused and amazed me was how these same pundits keep insisting that not only cutting the military budget is a sign of President Obama's projecting weakness, they openly lament that he would learn from their favorite President Ronald Reagan who showed strength to the world through his military policies, 'he broke down the wall and ended the Cold War" as one pundit said, "which made us safer and the undisputed leader of the Free World." All of this sounds good, if you ignore history, which many Republicans and Conservatives do. Television satirist and comedian Jon Steward must have seen the same Fox diatribe of how President Reagan's role in helping stabilizing Eastern Europe and the Middle East in the '8os, and how President Obama should be ashamed that he isn't Reagan because later the same day he did a segment on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show," Jon Stewart reminded us that the truth is nowhere close to what they said. Jon Stewart Rentituts• Fox That Reagan Created An International Mess Web Link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/26/jon-stewart-reagan-obama_n_4858723.html Steward reminded us of the residual consequences of some of President Reagan's policies. For instance, Reagan aided some Afghan militants in their battle with the Soviets, and those militants eventually turned into the Taliban. "But we didn't have to fight those guys for 12 more years, and Reagan was simply gone by then." These pundits that under the Reagan Administration, Oliver North illegally sold weapons to Iran and then illegally took that money and illegally gave to Nicaraguan death squads. Another thing they gloss over — when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan a group of Afghan rebels declared a "holy war." They were known as the Mujanideen and both the Carter and Reagan Administration gave the Mujanideen $3 billion aid to fight the Soviets. Republicans conveniently forget that it was President Reagan who pulled our US Marines out of Lebanon after the bombing of their barracks in Beirut that killed 241 American servicemen on October 23, 1983. And although President Reagan called the attack a "despicable act" and pledged to keep a military force in Lebanon, yet on April 21, the ready reaction force in Beirut was deactivated and its men were reassigned to their respective ships with the last Marines from the 24th MAU, the U.S./U.K. Embassy guard detail, being withdrawn from Beirut by late July 1984. And no Republicans called it "cut and run." As the world watches a bloody revolution in Ukraine unfold, many pundits (mostly those found on Fox News) have been unable to help themselves from pointing out President Ronald Reagan's role in helping stabilize that region in the '8os, and how President Obama should be ashamed that he isn't Reagan. Or something. Other Republicans and Conservative media view the bloodbath currently going on in Syria as some sort of missed opportunity to do regime change, even though none of them can identify a creditable successor to Bashar al-Assad with a strong enough following to subdue the current factions who see themselves as the rightful leaders, including factions who are so extreme that even al Qaeda and Hezbollah have disowned them. There is still a chance that Ukraine can return to civility, EFTA01133122 while the universal belief in the Middle East is that Syria is going to be a quagmire of warring hostilities for the next foreseeable future, unless the neighboring countries come together to stop the chaos and bloodshed. And no matter what Putin, Obama, Cameron, Merkel, Hollande and other Western leaders want or try to do, it will take the Syrian people themselves to say enough is enough to stop the killing. The paradigm for leadership have shifted. It is almost impossible to lead from the top down. The days of leaders dictating to the people are over. Consensus trumps power. Gunboat diplomacy is as outdated as empires and the Cold War. Still, many conservatives are insisting that we fight the same fight even when the opposition is totally different. Our biggest threat today is terrorism, not wars with Russia, North Korea, Iran and Cuba. If China really wanted to hurt us, all that they have to do is stop buying our T-Bills. And if they really wanted to screw us, dispose the $3 trillion of US debt in a fire- sale. But then they would be destroying the buying power of their biggest buyer, seriously hurting their own economy. One of my father's favorite sayings was that "history is re-written by the winners." And no better example of this is, the Reagan mythology. Ronald Reagan was a President who raised taxes, doubled the national debt, cut deals with Democrats, made nicey-nice with Gorbachev, took afternoon naps, let his wife (who often consulted a physic) fire "his" senior staff, cut and ran in Lebanon, and made claims like Chris Cristie in the current "bridge- gate"scandal, that he knew nothing about the illegal Iran-Contra shenanigans. I have met President Reagan several times, and found him truly an affable and charming person. And in spite of what his family members claim, I am sure that he was suffering from the effects of early dementia during the last years of his Presidency. History has truly been kind to him. And I don't want to criticize or dis his reputation, but Republicans have to stop claiming that what they are doing today is something that Reagan would do, when the truth is that he wouldn't and didn't. Please check out the full clip above. One of my favorite shows on television is HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher whose guest this week was Conservative columnist Bill Kristol, Margret Hoover, Austan Goolsbee, Bruce Dem and Christopher Leonard. And one of the things that they discussed was the Tea Party which celebrated its fifth anniversary this weekend. Bill started out the conversation by noting that their big issues were bailouts and too much socialism and that Fannie Mae paid back 109% of the money that they borrowed from the government, MG paid back 115%, the bank industry paid back 103% with the auto industry's paybacks lagging at 83%, hence essentially the government and taxpayers got all of their money back, while saving these industries and preventing much more harm to the economy and the country. When Maher suggested that this type of socialism work and asked what would it have been like had they not happened, Kristol's immediate response was "no", retorting that most of the bailouts happened under President Bush. Kristol continued on to say that the Tea Party was right to condemn these bail outs and other policies, as they were a very bad precedent. Kristol then continued to say that the origin of EFTA01133123 the Tea Party was not about bailouts and that it was about a mortgage bill and then it was about Obamacare and then the stimulus. At this point Maher interrupted }Cristo] and said the "big ugly,"that it was about a Black President to which Kristol vehemently denied, claiming that the accusation is "total bullshit." Maher responded that a month after Obama took office suddenly white people were worried about debt, even though President Bush had allow the nation's debt to mushroom during his two terms, with none of the intense rancor. Kristol response that there was Conservative upset against Bush, but I don't remember any of the intensity to the degree that was lodged against President Obama, even though it was the Bush/Cheney's economic policies that created the conditions for the worst recession since the Great Depression. By this time, Kristol's denials were so ridiculous that Margret Hoover stepped in acknowledging that although debt concerns started out under President Bush and not Obama, and that the Tea Part started out as a purely fiscal disciplinary mass movement to rein in Federal Spending, which she noted "was a good thing" but it got off the rails after 2010, when it was coopted by Michele Bachmann and other birthers in Congress. But this is not truly accurate. I am sure that Ms. Hoover is a nice person who truly believes that the Tea Party Movement's origin was not in response to racism, but it was.... It seeds began with the Reverend Wright assaults and continued through Donald Trump demands that Presidential candidate Barrack Obama show his long-form birth certificate (which I am not sure I could get even if offered me a million dollars) and then the continued vicious and racist attacks, not to mention that he was somehow a Manchurian Candidate Socialist Community Organizer who was going to turn the country into an Islamic state with Sharia Laws. Kristol, Hoover and other Republicans have re-created a fictional history that is totally bullshit. Joe The Plummer and other Tea Baggers had no interest in the country's deficit until it became a rallying cry against a Black President who somehow stole the election and the Presidency. And from day-one they have tried everything they can to delegitimize his accomplishments and Presidency. Not once over the past five years have I heard leaders of the Tea Party acknowledge that Obama Administration's policies, turned around the economic fortunes of the country, navigated us out of two wars, kept the country safe and made things better for the country than the day that they took office. The truth is that The Tea Party started out as a racist movement disguising itself as something else, when in reality it is nothing more than a bunch of white people with two or three "Uncle Toms" unable to come to terms that the President of the United States is a cool educated Black Man with a beautiful educated wife and an awesome family, who is far more successful than his predecessor. Just why is American politics so dysfunctional? One answer is that both parties, for different reasons, have created self-serving mythologies that reward them for not dealing with pressing problems that, though daunting, are hardly sudden or secret. First, immigration. By 2050, immigrants and their U.S.-born children are projected to represent 37 percent of the population, slightly higher than in 1900, when the country last experienced mass immigration. Between now and mid-century, immigrants and their children will generate two-thirds of population growth. The question is whether newcomers are constructively assimilated or whether — or characterization of popular fears — they "take our jobs, drain our resources, threaten our language ... and import crime." Either way, America's profile changes. In 1960, 85 percent of Americans were white and 10 percent were black. Now, 63 percent are white, 13 percent black, 17 percent Hispanic and 5 percent Asian. In 2050, those shares are projected to be 47 percent white, 13 percent black, 28 percent Hispanic and 8 percent Asian. EFTA01133124 Second, family breakdown. In 2011, unmarried women accounted for 41 percent of U.S. births, up from 5 percent in 1960. The trend affects all major groups. The rate is 29 percent for whites, 53 percent among Hispanics and 72 percent among African Americans. Although 6o percent of single mothers have live-in boyfriends, half of these relationships end within five years. Single parenthood's stigma is gone. This may shape the future middle class because growing up in a single-parent home puts children at a disadvantage. Social-science research show that children in two-parent homes — despite millions of exceptions — are "healthier, do better academically, and get into less trouble as adolescents." Finally, aging. Every day 10,000 baby boomers turn 65. The retiree flood is swamping the federal budget. By 2022, Social Security, Medicare and the non-child share of Medicaid will exceed half the budget, up from 3o percent in 1990, projects an Urban Institute study. To make room for the elderly, defense and many domestic programs are being relentlessly squeezed. There's no generational justice, argues Taylor: "The young today are paying taxes to support a level of benefits for the old that they themselves have no prospect of receiving when they become old." America's future rests heavily on how these mega-trends play out. Democracy works best when the political system can mediate between the often-inconsistent demands of public opinion and larger national needs. This, America's leaders can't or won't do. Faced with immutable trends, they have not adapted to change. Instead, they pander to partisans with soothing, though outdated, stereotypes. Nostalgia poses as policy when it is actually a marketing strategy. Conservatives say that Liberals won't come to terms with aging. Believing that spending on the elderly and near-elderly constitutes the essence of progressivism — and ignoring the affluence of many elderly — some liberals even support raising these benefits. And that the pro-government party has become an instrument of anti-government policies, because accommodating all the elderly's benefits means quietly condoning deep cuts in most other programs. Conservatives say that this brand of liberalism discriminates against the young with their economic problems stemming heavily from the Great Recession (in 2012, 4o percent of men ages 18 to 31 lived with their parents). But shrinking government services and looming tax increases compound the damage. While Conservative pundits admit that Conservatives have parallel hang-ups. They can't adapt to the permanence of Big Government or the presence of so many immigrants, including an estimated 11 million who are here illegally. Even if unworthy government programs are cut, federal spending will easily exceed one-fifth of national income, which is more than today's taxes will cover. Higher taxes, contrary to GOP dogma, will be needed and illegal immigrants won't conveniently vanish and unless we convene death panels younger generations will have to take care of their elders like they do elsewhere in the world. EFTA01133125 .ETT: INCREASING EARNED INCOME TAX IT WOULD NEW LOWER INCOME WORKERS The billionaire investor Warren Buffett told CNBC's Becky Quick Monday morning that the Earned Income Tax Credit -- a tax break for low-income Americans aimed at encouraging work -- would actually be the most direct way to help America's working poor with fewest negative side effects. '°The Earned Income Tax Credit I think is much clearer," Buffett said. "That puts more money in the pockets of people earning low wages and that's what. like to see." President Barack Obama urged reforming the EITC in his State of the Union address earlier this year. The IRS claims the tax break helped lift 6.6 million people out of poverty in 2011, the most recent year for which full data is available, according to the Associated Press. Currently the credit does significantly more for families with children. Obama's proposal would expand the EITC for workers without kids. A July study from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that expanding the EITC by lowering the age of eligibility for childless workers would lift an additional 300,000 Americans out of poverty. Obama has proposed raising the federal minimum wage from $7.25 to WAD an hour as one way to life Americans out of poverty. While some research shows that a minimum wage hike would boost the economy and eventually create jobs, some argue that a minimum wage hike would discourage businesses from hiring workers because of increased payroll costs. Buffett noted in his interview with CNBC that "there's tradeoffs on the minimum wage and you can do all these studies but they don't know." Changes to the EITC likely wouldn't affect employers' hiring decisions since it won't raise wages. Additionally, any expansion of the tax credit would be sure to go only to the working poor, while some of the beneficiaries of an increased minimum wage would be teenagers and others simply working minimum wage jobs for extra cash. "(The EITC) doesn't distort the market system in any great way," Buffett said. Very rarely do I disagree with the Oracle of Omaha. Yes studies say that the EITC produces an immediate effect but raising the minimum wage is aldn to a rising tide that raises wages for everyone, especially those at or near the bottom. The minimum wage especially needs raising when there is talk in Washington in both the Executive and Congressional Branches of government about cutting entitlements, which are the safety net for the elderly, poor and millions of children. The problem is that when benefits are cut and the safety net is eviscerated the elderly, poor and children suffer far more than everyone else. Today 15% of America (approximately 5o million Americans) live below the poverty line, down from 22% (39.9 million individuals) in the late 50s. Before the mid-1970s, economic growth in the United States was associated with falling poverty rates. If that relationship had held, poverty would have been eradicated in the 1980s. The decoupling of rising growth and falling poverty, however, means that Americans are working longer and harder but becoming poorer and less economically secure. EFTA01133126 Quick facts $22,314: In 2010, the poverty threshold was $22,314 for a family of four. 15.1%: 15.1 percent — just over 46 million Americans — were officially in poverty in 2010. This is an increase from 12.5 percent in 2007. 27.4%: Among racial and ethnic groups, African Americans had the highest poverty rate, 27.4 percent, followed by Hispanics at 26.6 percent and whites at 9.9 percent. 45.8%: 45.8 percent of young black children (under age 6) live in poverty, compared to 14.5 percent of white children. 28.0%: In 2011, 28.0 percent of workers earned poverty-level wages ($11.06 or less an hour). 18-25: Workers earning poverty-level wages are disproportionately female, black, Hispanic, or between the ages of 18 and 25. 1.8x: The United States spends less on social programs (16.2 percent of GDP) than similarly developed countries (21.3 percent of GDP), has a relative poverty rate (the share of the population living on less than half of median household income) 1.8 times higher than those peer nations, and has a child poverty rate more than twice as high. Other dimensions of poverty 33.9%: The official poverty rate is widely accepted as being inadequate in capturing those whose earnings make it difficult to make ends meet. To account for this, many cite the "twice poverty" rate, which is double the threshold ($44,628 in 2010 for a family of four) and provides a more accurate measurement of material deprivation. In 2010, the twice poverty rate was 33.9 percent. 44.3%: The further below the official poverty line you fall, the more vulnerable you are. Nearly half (44.3 percent) of the poor are in deep poverty (living on half or less of the official poverty line; this deep-poverty threshold stood at $11,057 in 2010 for a family of four). MOVING IN AND OUT OF POVERTY Since 1973's historical low of 11.1 percent poverty in the United States, poverty rates generally rise during recessions and drop during recoveries. The recovery following the 2001 recession, however, saw poverty increase and then further explode during the Great Recession. From 2008 through 2009, 32.2 percent were in poverty for at least one month, and 52.6 percent were below twice poverty for a least one month. In addition, 4.6 percent were in poverty for the entirety of the two-year period, while 18 percent were at twice poverty for the entirety. Therefore, the official poverty rate of 15.1 percent understates the number of people who experience poverty. Income inequality is greatest cause of higher poverty rates EFTA01133127 Income inequality is the largest factor contributing to higher poverty rates. Increased numbers of minorities and single-mother-headed households are often cited as determinants of higher poverty rates, though they are much smaller contributing factors. A study of the 1979 — 2007 period finds: 5.5: The largest contributor to the overall rise in the poverty rate is income inequality, which increased poverty rates by 5.5 percentage points. 0.9: Changing racial composition accounts for a o.9 percentage-point increase in poverty rates. 1.4: Family structure (single-mother headed households) accounts for a 1.4 percentage-point increase in poverty rates. 13.8: Increased educational attainment decreased poverty rates 2.7 percentage points, and income growth contributed to a 3.8 percentage-point decrease in poverty rates. Beyond the above numbers we Americans should understand that it is our duty to protect the most vulnerable in society. This is not about wealth redistribution or saddling younger generations with the costs of helping their elders. It is just that it is the right thing to do, because there would not be anything for future generations to inherit if their elders hadn't left it to them. Almost everywhere else on the planet, not only does society take care of children, elders and the infirmed, it is viewed as both a responsibility and privilege and for the richest country in the world to not feel the same is a shame and a travesty. I realize that this may sound like a non-sequitur, but one has to wonder why why Conservatives are so eager to give rich people more money in the form of lower taxes and other benefits because it encourages them to work harder and produce more, while at the same time these same people believe that cuffing programs/money to the poor people will result in them working harder But then isn't this what Mitt Romney was alluding to in his famed 47% gaffe. Last Sunday I watch in amazement the Sunday morning network television news shows, as pundit after pundit took their best shot to describe the situation in Ukraine and Conservative Republicans most notably John McCain and Lindsey Graham blamed President Obama for Vladimir Putin feeling dismissive of the U.S. role as the only indisputable super power and sending troops into Ukraine's largely Russian-speaking Crimean peninsula, home to the Kremlin's Black Sea fleet. How dare he? Monday's Wall Street Journal editorial: "In the brutal were all of global power politics, Ukraine is in particular a casualty of Mr. Obama's failure to enforce is "red line" on Syria. When the leader of the world's only super power issues a milita►y ultimatum and then blinks, others notice The world is full of love revisionist powers embed actors looking to exploit the opening created by Mr. Obama's retreat from global leadership, Mr. Putin is the leading edge of what could quickly become a New World disorder." Rep. Mike Rogers, said on Fox News: "I think that Putin is playing chess and we are playing marbles." Senator John McCain on Fox News: "This is a blatant act by Vladimir Putin and one that must be unacceptable to the world community. Why do we care? Because this is the ultimate result of afleckless foreign policy where nobody believes in America stress anymore." "The President of the United States believes that the Cold War is over. That's fine and it is over, but Putin doesn't believe it's over." EFTA01133128 Senator Lindsey Graham on CNN: "Stop going on television and trying to threaten thugs and dictators, it is not your strong suit. Every time the president goes on national television and threatens Putin or anyone like Putin, everybody's eyes roll including mine. We have a weak and indecisive President that invites aggression." Rudy Giuliani (chuckling) on Fox News: "Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half a day. He makes a decision and he executes it quickly, then everybody reacts.... That's what you call a leader. President Obama he's gotta think about it, he's gotta go over it again, he's gotta talk to more people about it." First of all, this is not our fight. Secondly, as Colin Powell warned President Bush, "if you break it you own it." Finally, where do these guys get their moral authority? Look at our history. Since I became an adult, the United States invaded Viet Nam, Grenada, Panama, Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again, in this does not include proxy wars in Nicaragua, Angola and elsewhere and coup in the Africa, Middle East, South East Asia and Central and South America. It is understandable why Putin might feel that he had the moral authority to stop insurrection in a neighboring country that could bleed elsewhere and where 25% of the people speak Russian. And when you look at it thought his lens, to be honest, it was a wise move for him to make. But blaming President Obama for not being able to put the fear of God into a dictator who views himself as "the" master of the universe, is as ridiculous as Putin looks riding a horse in the Russian winter bare-chested. We are a democracy. These same pundits and politicians who accuse the President of being weak, are the same pundits and politicians who accuse him of acting like a dictator when he threatens executive action or take punitive action against our enemies without their consent. Imagine if the President acted as Rudy Giuliani suggested, how do you think Rogers, McCain and Graham would react? And Lindsey Graham's nonsense of the U.S. putting nuclear defense sites (rockets) in Poland, "creating a democratic noose around Putin's Russia" would garner the same escalated anger and outrage from America, if Russia did the same in Cuba — this is wacky, beyond dangerous and insane. You have to look at both sides of the coin before making decision, but this is not the case from these idiots who would rather shoot first. What these same hawkish pundits and politicians forget is that we need Putin to help us deescalate the civil war in Syria and pressure Iran to abandon their nuclear ambitions. And backing him into a corner in Ukraine is not going to endear him to work with us elsewhere. On Sunday's Meet The Press, host David Gregory started out saying that the Ukrainian situation was somehow a leadership problem for President Obama "that bad actors take him seriously." Even though I am not a political scientist and I can tell you that this is short-sighted. Aside from possibly being the richest person on the planet and the undisputed dictator of his country, Putin has the second most powerful military in the world. And if he doesn't want insurrection on his border, on-one can stop him. The same is true here. If an American President decided to invade Cuba, for any trivial reason, (think Grenada), do you think that the Russians could or would try to stop us? Of course NOT.... In this case, what Putin, might do is annex one of the former Soviet Republics or maybe a piece of one, such as Crimea as his retribution and to save face. The United States has to stop seeing itself as the World's police. First of all it is too expensive. And secondly, universally people don't like police, until they need hem. And then when you take side, one of the unintended consequences is that you often create enemies. Look at Egypt. The army was praised by the Egyptian people for overthrowing Mubarak and then Morsi and now many Egyptians see them EFTA01133129 as oppressors. I watched NBC News' political director Chuck Todd "Putin acts, Obama warns, Putin acts, Obama warns." "And the US should put Russia out of the G8." WHY? Yes the United States could try to impose sanctions on Russia and kick them out of the G8, but then Russia would cut off natural gas supplies and crude to Western Europe, reeking economic havoc on some of the weaker countries. Also, lets remember that one of the big problems in Ukraine is that it is broke and in need of money. So if we run down the road of being Ukraine's savior, it comes with a cost. Russia bought off Ukraine's President Yanukovych off with US$15 billion and it is estimated the country needs three- times this much. Do we have to collectively ask ourselves do the taxpayers in the US, UK, France and Germany want to shoulder this burden? I don't think so. Don't let our ego have us write a check that the American taxpayers won't want to pay. Ukraine is Putin's problem, lets let him solve it. And sending tanks in to Crimea is not a lasting solution even for Vladimir Putin. President Obama plays the long ball, while McCain, Graham, Cruz and the 24 hour new cycle, reacts to every knee jerk, often without considering the full scope and consequences. Right now there is no mass genocide in the Ukraine, and the former Ukrainian President who was just released from jail, presided over an administration so corrupt, that even her supporters don't want to see her returned to power. Therefore, why not let things play out, and then make an assessment. America use to lead by example, but after World War 2 it became corrupted by power and and ego and now anything less than being a bully is seen as weakness. When I first started drinking alcohol, an older friend gave me sage advice, "if you don't know, sip slow, and if you use this same dictum for everything in life you will do well." I am glad that we have an intelligent urbane cool President who sips slow. And anytime we can use diplomacy over bullying or bullets we win, no matter how long the game goes. We have to ask one important question. Has the Republican Party of John McCain and Lindsey Graham become the second brothers of American politics? Obama takes a Heritage Foundation program on healthcare and its individual mandate what Republicans used to like, but now because they have to play the part of the rebellious brother they have to attack. The Democrats control the administration which includes the IRS, so Republicans have to attack that too. The Democrats control State Department, again little brother has to go on the attack. Then of course this week it is the Ukraine. Let's be real, does any party in power or any leader on the planet have the answer for Vladimir Putin's behavior? Does that make President Obama and the Democrats a big brother? Using this simple analogy, you can see that a lot of what Republicans are doing today is sure partisan robotic behavior. Because if the purpose of the opposition is merely to oppose the Republicans have got that down perfectly. If it is just the play the role of the second brother, they got a cold and any eight year old can play that game. If you think this is over the top listen to former Presidential contender and New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who swooned Monday on Fox News, "Putin decides what he wants to do and he does it in half a day, right?" and "He decided he had to go to their parliament. He went to their parliament. He got permission in 15 minutes." But isn't this the same Putin that Republicans are calling a repugnant dictator? Or as E.J. Dionne wrote in response to Giluliani's comments, "Ah, the joys of dictatorship." No day is complete without some invocation of Benghazi by Republicans. Thus this tweet from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) on Tuesday: "It started with Benghazi. When you kill Americans and nobody pays a price, you invite this type of aggression." Graham's friends explain this away as his effort to ward off a tea party challenge in South Carolina's June primary. Bu t that's the point: Republicans indulge in Obama Derangement Syndrome precisely because so many who vote in GOP primaries demand it. EFTA01133130 Republicans typically reply that Democrats were no softies when it came to George W. Bush. There's truth to that, particularly in the final years of his tenure. What they ignore is that Democrats entirely shelved partisanship after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. There was little opposition to Bush's decision to send troops to Afghanistan and less questioning in advance of the Iraq war than there should have been. Moreover, Republicans were utterly unrestrained in casting opposition to Bush's policies as disloyalty to the nation. When Nancy Pelosi accused Bush in 2004 of being "incompetent," Tom Delay, then the House majority leader, denounced the top House Democrat for being "so caught up in the partisan hatred for President Bush that her words are putting American lives at risk." In late September 2004, during the presidential campaign, Bush said that his opponent John Kerry's statements on Iraq "can embolden an enemy," while Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) predicted that terrorists "are going to throw everything they can between now and the election to try and elect Kerry." Washington usually responds blandly by saying that "both parties do it." But this isn't true, remember the days of Tip O'Neal working across the aisle with President Reagan and LBJ working with Republican leaders (to the dismay of Southern Democrats) to get the landmark 1964 Civil Rights Act passed. What has changed are the politics of Newt Gingrich, Tom Delay and now Ted Cruz, where it everything is the other side's fault and compromise is a weakness. Note the consistent thread through the GOP attacks: that Democrats — then Kerry, now Obama — are weak and vacillating and give comfort to our foes which has led to Assad killing his own people in Syria and Russian troops marching into Ukraine. Why is it acceptable for supporters of a party to condemn critics as near-traitors when their side is in power and then embrace the right to dissent when the other guys control the White House? Freedom is freedom. There's also this. A remarkably broad cross-party consensus has quickly coalesced around two propositions: the first that we will not commit U.S. military forces in this crisis, but secondly, we should use every realistic form of pressure at our disposal to contain and then reverse Putin's assault on Ukraine's sovereignty. Must we pretend to disagree even when we agree? Unless one is playing the role of the younger brother. And this is my rant of the week WEEK's READINGS Human activities are changing the climate EFTA01133131 Anomaly (°C) relative to 1961-1990 FORWARD 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 Annual average NI P\ A 1850 1900 1950 2000 Year CLIMATE CHANGE EVIDENCE & CAUSES Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 5o years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities. In order to discern the human influence on climate, scientists must consider many natural variations that affect temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate from local to global scale, on timescales from days to decades and longer. One natural variation is the El Niflo Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an irregular alternation between warming and cooling (lasting about two to seven years) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean that causes significant year-to-year regional and global shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. Volcanic eruptions also alter climate, in part increasing the amount of small (aerosol) particles in the stratosphere that reflect or absorb sunlight, leading to a short-term surface cooling lasting typically about two to three years. Over hundreds of thousands of years, slow, recurring variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun, which alter the distribution of solar energy received by Earth, have been enough to trigger the ice age cycles of the past 800,000 years. Fingerprinting is a powerful way of studying the causes of climate change. Different influences on climate lead to different patterns seen in climate records. This becomes obvious when scientists probe beyond changes in the average temperature of the planet and look more closely at geographical and temporal patterns of climate change. For example, an increase in the Sun's energy output will lead to a very different pattern of temperature change (across Earth's surface and vertically in the atmosphere) compared to that induced by an increase in CO2 concentration. Observed atmospheric temperature changes show a fingerprint much closer to that of a long-term CO2 increase than to that of a fluctuating Sun alone. Scientists routinely test whether purely natural changes in the Sun, volcanic activity, or internal climate variability could plausibly explain the patterns of change they have observed in many different aspects of the climate system. These analyses have shown that the observed climate changes of the past several decades cannot be explained just by natural factors. EFTA01133132 Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone Sir Paul Nurse President, National Academy of Sciences President, Royal Society HUMAN ACTIVITIES ARE CHANGING THE CLIMATE Rigorous analysis of all data and lines of evidence shows that most of the observed global warming over the past 50 years or so cannot be explained by natural causes and instead requires a significant role for the influence of human activities. In order to discern the human influence on climate, scientists must consider many natural variations that affect temperature, precipitation, and other aspects of climate from local to global scale, on timescales from days to decades and longer. One natural variation is the El Nifio Southern Oscillation (ENSO), an irregular alternation between warming and cooling (lasting about two to seven years) in the equatorial Pacific Ocean that causes significant year-to-year regional and global shifts in temperature and rainfall patterns. Volcanic eruptions also alter climate, in part increasing the amount of small (aerosol) particles in the stratosphere that reflect or absorb sunlight, leading to a short-term surface cooling lasting typically about two to three years. Over hundreds of thousands of years, slow, recurring variations in Earth's orbit around the Sun, which alter the distribution of solar energy received by Earth, have been enough to trigger the ice age cycles of the past 800,000 years. Fingerprinting is a powerful way of studying the causes of climate change. Different influences on climate lead to different patterns seen in climate records. This becomes obvious when scientists probe beyond changes in the average temperature of the planet and look more closely at geographical and temporal patterns of climate change. For example, an increase in the Sun's energy output will lead to a very different pattern of temperature change (across Earth's surface and vertically in the atmosphere) compared to that induced by an increase in CO2 concentration. Observed atmospheric temperature changes show a fingerprint much closer to that of a long-term C02 increase than to that of a fluctuating Sun alone. Scientists routinely test whether purely natural changes in the Sun, volcanic activity, or internal climate variability could plausibly explain the patterns of change they have observed in many different aspects of the climate system. These analyses have shown that the observed climate changes of the past several decades cannot be explained just by natural factors. HOW WILL CLIMATE CHANGE IN THE FUTURE? Scientists have made major advances in the observations, theory, and modelling of Earth's climate system; and these advances have enabled them to project future climate change with increasing confidence. Nevertheless, several major issues make it impossible to give precise estimates of how global or regional temperature trends will evolve decade by decade into the future. Firstly, we cannot predict how much CO2 human activities will emit, as this depends on factors such as how the global economy develops and how society's production and consumption of energy changes in the coming decades. Secondly, with current understanding of the complexities of how climate feedbacks operate, there is a range of possible outcomes, even for a particular scenario of CO2 emissions. Finally, over EFTA01133133 timescales of a decade or so, natural variability can modulate the effects of an underlying trend in temperature. Taken together, all model projections indicate that Earth will continue to warm considerably more over the next few decades to centuries. If there were no technological or policy changes to reduce emission trends from their current trajectory, then further warming of 2.6 to 4.8 °C (4.7 to 8.6 °F) in addition to that which has already occurred would be expected during the 21st century [Figure B5]. Projecting what those ranges will mean for the climate experienced at any particular location is a challenging scientific problem, but estimates are continuing to improve as regional and local-scale models advance. Global average surface temperature change 6.0 4.0 0.0 -2.0 2000 2050 Historical Aggressive emissions reductions "Business as usual" emissions 1950 2100 The amount and rate of warming expected for the 21st century depends on the total amount of greenhouse gases that humankind emits. Models project the temperature increase for a business-as- usual emissions scenario (in red) and aggressive emission reductions, falling close to zero 5o years from now (in blue). Black is the modelled estimate of past warming. Each solid line represents the average of different model runs using the same emissions scenario, and the shaded areas provide a measure of the spread (one standard deviation) between the temperature changes projected by the different models. All data are relative to a reference period (set to zero) of 1986-2005. CONCLUSION This document explains that there are well-understood physical mechanisms by which changes in the amounts of greenhouse gases cause climate changes. It discusses the evidence that the concentrations of these gases in the atmosphere have increased and are still increasing rapidly, that climate change is occurring, and that most of the recent change is almost certainly due to emissions of greenhouse gases caused by human activities. Further climate change is inevitable; if emissions of greenhouse gases continue unabated, future changes will substantially exceed those that have occurred so far. There remains a range of estimates of the magnitude and regional expression of future change, but increases in the extremes of climate that can adversely affect natural ecosystems and human activities and infrastructure are expected. EFTA01133134 Citizens and governments can choose among several options (or a mixture of those options) in response to this information: they can change their pattern of energy production and usage in order to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and hence the magnitude of climate changes; they can wait for changes to occur and accept the losses, damage and suffering that arise; they can adapt to actual and expected changes as much as possible; or they can seek as yet unproven `geoengineering' solutions to counteract some of the climate changes that would otherwise occur. Each of these options has risks, attractions and costs, and what is actually done may be a mixture of these different options. Different nations and communities will vary in their vulnerability and their capacity to adapt. There is an important debate to be had about choices among these options, to decide what is best for each group or nation, and most importantly for the global population as a whole. The options have to be discussed at a global scale, because in many cases those communities that are most vulnerable control few of the emissions, either past or future. Our description of the science of climate change, with both its facts and its uncertainties, is offered as a basis to inform that policy debate. ****** The Clear Benefits of a Higher Wage By NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL BOARD - FEB. 19.2014 Republicans sputtered with outrage when the Congressional Budget Office said that immigration reform would lower the deficit, strengthen Social Security and speed up economic growth. They called for the office to be abolished when it dared to point out that tax cuts raise the deficit or when it highlighted the benefits of health care reform. But now that the budget office has predicted (and exaggerated) the possibility that an increase in the minimum wage might result in a loss of jobs, Republicans think it's gospel. "This report confirms what we've long known," said a spokesman for the House speaker, John Boehner. "While helping some, mandating higher wages has real costs, including fewer people working." What Republicans fail to mention is that Tuesday's report from the budget office, a federal nonpartisan agency, was almost entirely positive about the benefits of raising the minimum wage to $10.10 by 2016, as President Obama and Congressional Democrats have proposed. More than 16 million low-wage workers, now making as little as $7.25 an hour, would directly benefit from the increase, the report said. Another eight million workers making slightly more than the minimum would probably also get raises, because of the upward "ripple effect" of an increase. That would add $31 billion to the paychecks of families ranging from poverty level to the middle class, significantly increasing their spending power and raising the nation's economic output and overall income. In fact, the report said, 900,000 people would be lifted from poverty with a wage increase. The income of those below the poverty line would increase by a total of $5 billion, or 3 percent, at no cost to the federal budget. EFTA01133135 The vast majority of those getting raises would not be teenagers with part-time jobs. Nearly 90 percent of them are adults 20 and older, and 53 percent of them work full time. Women represent 56 percent of them. But the report said there could be a cost to the wage increase, and most of the headlines have focused on the possible loss of 500,000 jobs, or about 0.3 percent of total employment. That bears further scrutiny, because, unlike the benefits, the employment estimates have been disputed by a wide variety of nonpartisan economic studies. What the report actually says is that there is a two-thirds chance that a $10.10 wage would produce job losses in a range from just above zero to one million. The number 500,000 was simply picked as a midpoint. (There is a one-third chance the wage increase would lead to more than a million job losses or actually increase employment.) A range that big is essentially the budget office's way of saying it doesn't really know what would happen to employment if the wage goes up, because, as the report says, there is vast uncertainty about how much wages will go up on their own over the next three years, and uncertainty about how employers would react to a higher minimum. The budget office didn't do its own research on those variables. It surveyed the economic literature on the subject, and chose a figure more conservative than the most recent and rigorous studies have found. That means the job-loss figure needs to regarded skeptically, as a careful reading of the report shows, while the benefits are undisputed. Those benefits to millions of low-wage workers overwhelmingly outweigh the questionable possibility of job losses. Lawmakers who focus only on the potential downside of an enormously beneficial policy change are the same ones who never wanted to do it in the first place. One of the biggest problems and challenges in the United States is the growing economic inequality between the Top i% and the 99%. And this distinction is not unique to America as almost half of the world's wealth is now owned by less than i% of the population according to a recent article in Forbes Magazine - The 85 Richest People In The World Have As Much Wealth As The 3.5 Billion Poorest by Laura Shin. Conservatives tend to attack any programs that are targeted to address wealth inequity, as redistribution that will hamper growth, without acknowledging that the game is rigged in favor of the wealthy, not only here in the US but everywhere on the planet. But what we do know is that when economic inequality persists beyond a tipping point, society will make its own correction. Think: Marie Antonette, the Bolshevik Revolution, overthrow of the Shah of Iran, Muammar Gaddafi and Aisin-Gioro Puyi, better known at The Last Emperor of China to mention just a few examples. The idea that inequality is a choice, that there is a trade-off between equality and efficiency and that taxing the rich to give to the poor will slow the economy down because rich and poor alike will have less incentive to work is poppycock. More and more economists now believe that redistribution might actually increase growth, at least within limits. That's the conclusion of a new paper from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that looks at how inequality and redistribution affect how much and how long the economy grows. The trick is isolating how much redistribution helps growth by reducing inequality, and how much it hurts growth by reducing work incentives. But the researchers were able to do this by looking at Frederick Solt's data on country's inequality before and after taxes-and-transfers, and then running a few tests. Here are the big takeaways. (Note: The Gini index measures the income distribution on a scale from o, where there's perfect equality, to 100, where there's perfect inequality). EFTA01133136 1. If two countries have the same amount of redistribution, the one with more inequality will tend to grow less. Specifically, moving from the Both to the 6oth percentiles for inequality will knock 0.5 percentage points off of per capita growth a year. 2. If two countries have the same amount of inequality, the one with more redistribution will not tend to grow any less — at least not in a statistically significant way. 3. But this doesn't tell us the whole story about redistribution and growth. That's because redistribution doesn't keep inequality constant; it reduces inequality. So what we really want to do is add these two together, to see the combined effects of less inequality and more redistribution on growth. Since the former helps growth and the latter doesn't hurt it that means that redistribution overall tends to increase growth. 4. How long an economy grows, though, can be more important than how much it does. As the researchers point out, growth isn't some linear process. It comes in fits and starts, and it can be hard to restart after a fit. The question then is what inequality and redistribution do to how long a "growth spell" lasts. The answer: pretty much the same thing they do to how much growth there is. 5. The more inequality there is, the greater the chance that a growth spell will end the next year. The researchers found that every point the Gini index goes up makes growth six percent more likely to stop soon. 6. Redistribution has a more complicated relationship with growth spells. It doesn't affect how long the economy grows when it's low. But it does make the economy less likely to keep growing when it's high, in the top 25 percent. You can see just how high is high in the blue dots below. The countries with the most post-tax equality — and redistribution—tend to be the most unequal pre-tax. In other words inequality is always and everywhere a political phenomenon. It's a choice. 7. But, as I said before, it's a choice we don't have to make. Redistribution overall helps, and at least doesn't harm, growth spells. That's because the positive effects of less inequality add to or offset the negligible, or negative, effects of redistribution itself. When redistribution is in the bottom 75 percent, these positive effects are the only ones, and growth lasts longer. And when redistribution is in the top 25 percent, these positive effects make up for the negative ones from taxing-and-transferring so much —it's a statistically insignificant wash. Prior to the opening of the World Economic Forum this year in Davos, Switzerland, Oxfam International has released a new report called, "Working for the Few,"that contains some startling statistics on what it calls the "growing tide of inequality." The report states: • Almost half of the world's wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population. • The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $no trillion. That's 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world's population. • The bottom half of the world's population owns the same as the richest % people in the world. • Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years. • The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012. EFTA01133137 • In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer. Asserting that some economic inequality is necessary to foster growth, it also warns that extreme levels of wealth concentration "threaten to exclude hundreds of millions of people from realizing the benefits of their talents and hard work." giTables From Oxfam's 'Working For The Few' Report Oxfam also conducted polls in six countries — Spain, Brazil, India, South Africa, the U.K. and the U.S. — showing that a majority of people believe "laws are skewed in favor of the rich" in areas ranging from financial deregulation, tax laws favoring the wealthy and facilitation tax evasion, austerity economics, policies that disproportionately harm women, and oil and mineral revenues. The report states that the trend can be reversed, as it has at other times in history, such as in the U.S. and Europe after World War II and in Latin America in the last decade. So countries that spread the wealth around more seem to grow more and grow longer than countries that don't. As for you Conservatives who would like to go back to good old days when the United States economic engine was the envy of the world, remember that we had the G.I. Bill, the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956 and a top tax bracket of 90%, creating a new educated workforce, state of the art infrastructure that opened the Western United States and the larget middle class in the history of the world that became the driving engine for this miracle. And again as I always say, it is the right thing to do.... World's most expensive city is _Inline image (CNN) -- Move over Tokyo. Web Link: httplAvww.cnn.com/2014/03/04/travelimost-expensivecitiesiindex.html?hpt=hp c3 Singapore has dethroned the Japanese capital to become the world's most expensive city in 2014, according to the Economist Intelligence Unit's latest Worldwide Cost of Living survey. The bi-annual report, which ranks 131 global cities, credits currency appreciation, solid price inflation and high costs of living for Singapore's dubious new distinction. "Car costs have very high related certificate of entitlement fees attached to them, which makes Singapore significantly more expensive than any other location when it comes to running a car," says the report. "As a result, transport costs in Singapore are almost three times higher than in New York. In addition, as a city-state with very few natural resources to speak of, Singapore is reliant on other EFTA01133138 countries for energy and water supplies, making it the third most expensive destination for utility costs." Singapore is also the priciest place in the world to buy clothes. Last year's title holder Tokyo, dropped from the top spot to sixth -- tied with Melbourne, Geneva and Caracas. Tokyo's decline is due to the weaker yen, says the EIU. World's 10 most expensive cities to live in 2014 1. Singapore 2. Paris 3. Oslo, Norway 4. Zurich, Switzerland 5. Sydney 6. Caracas, Venezuela 6. Geneva, Switzerland 6. Melbourne 6. Tokyo 7. Copenhagen, Denmark Asia also has the world's cheapest city on the list. Down at the other end of the 131-city survey, the EIU lists Mumbai as the world's least expensive city to live in. The Indian capital, New Delhi, is third cheapest. "Although India has been tipped for future growth, much of this is driven by its large population and the untapped potential within the economy," says the EIU. "Income inequality means that low wages proliferate, driving down household spending and creating many tiers of pricing that keep per capita spending low. 'This, combined with a cheap and plentiful supply of goods into cities, as well as government subsidies on some products, has kept prices down, especially by Western standards." World's 10 least expensive cities to live in 204 122. Riyadh, Saudi Arabia EFTA01133139 123. Jeddah, Saudi Arabia 124. Panama City, Panama 124. Bucharest, Romania 126. Algiers, Algeria 127. Damascus, Syria 127. Kathmandu, Nepal 129. New Delhi 130. Karachi, Pakistan 131. Mumbai, India The Worldwide Cost of Living survey is released twice a year by the EIU. For additional see the web link above. It compares more than 400 individual prices across 16o products and services in 131 cities, including food, drink, clothing, household supplies and personal care items, home rents, transport, utility bills, private schools, domestic help and recreational costs. In total, more than 50,000 individual prices are collected in each survey. "The cost-of-living index uses an identical set of weights that is internationally based and not geared toward the spending pattern of any specific nationality," says the EIU. "Items are individually weighted across a range of categories and a comparative index is produced using the relative difference by weighted item." The unfolding crisis in Ukraine is a disaster — for the people of Ukraine, for Europe and the US and for a huge number of businesses with interests in Ukraine and Russia. EFTA01133140 The one clear winner from this, certainly in his eyes, is Vladimir Putin. He appears to have calculated that because the West has made it clear that it will not retaliate militarily, he has a free hand. In his winner-takes-all view of the world, if the West is at a disadvantage, then he must be winning. Yet in behaving like a school bully who befriends you and then refuses to let you have any other friends, he could, ultimately, be the biggest loser of all. His concerted effort in November last year to prise Ukraine away from a deal that would bring closer co-operation with the European Union, which was the trigger for the protests that eventually drove Viktor Yanukovich from office, always looked misguided. In his quest to revive a Soviet-era sphere of influence, rather than allow Ukraine to become a stronger economic partner by signing up to a deal with the EU that would have brought reform, finance, stronger governance and access to the world's biggest market, he effectively paid $15 billion for a dysfunctional economy run by a crook that has just provided a textbook example of how people power can force an autocratic leader from power. With a government accused of abusing the rule of law, an economy dominated by oligarchs and a populace fed up with rampant corruption, Ukraine holds up an uncomfortable mirror to Russia. However much Russian media spins the story, in the social media age they no longer have a monopoly on the news and the lessons of the Maidan are unlikely to be lost on opponents of Putin in Russia. And indeed, the knock-on effects have already started. The rouble has fallen to an all-time low, share prices have plummeted and the central bank has had to raise interest rates. There are reports that Russians desperate to buy dollars and euros are struggling to find any — hardly a vote of confidence in Putin's strategy. Meanwhile, keeping Ukraine economically weak and disrupting its efforts to foster closer ties with Europe will also backfire because that weakness will have knock-on effects with the country Ukraine's economy is most integrated with — Russia. It might look as if Russia holds all the cards in its relations with Europe because of the huge amount of gas that it exports to the region — almost a third of Russian gas flows west. Yet it needs European demand as much as, if not more than, Europe needs Russian supplies. The Russian economy needs urgently to diversify and become less reliant on its energy supplies. But investors have become increasingly wary of investing in Russia in recent years because of the capricious nature of the Putin regime. The events in Crimea have swept away the last vestiges of trust — and yet Russia is not a self- sufficient monolith like the Soviet Union was. It is part of the global economy now and the market's reaction has consequences. And this gives a clue as to how the West can respond to Russia's provocation. So far, Ukraine's government has acted with admirable restraint and the West has ruled out military action. It doesn't need to take military action. Time is on the side of Europe and the US, particularly if they stand firm in stating that Russia's actions are unacceptable, take steps to isolate Russia diplomatically through measures such as abandoning the G8 and start to target the assets and movement of prominent EFTA01133141 Russians associated with Putin. For a man who is looking for some respect, this stuff matters — and events in Kiev have shown that losing the support of the oligarchs leaves a leader looking very vulnerable. As it ratchets up the pressure, another short-term measure the US could take is to allow its booming shale gas industry to start exporting gas to Europe, providing an alternative to Russian gas. In the longer term, the obvious lesson for the EU is that it should step up its campaign to increase its energy efficiency and renewable energy capacity, further reducing its dependence on Russian assets. It can also look forward to other sources of gas such as Australia coming on stream over the next few years and may even see Iran return to the world market if nuclear talks progress well. In addition, it has its own shale gas resources that it could develop more enthusiastically than it currently is. Russia continues, at the moment, to insist that Yanukovich was overthrown in an illegitimate coup, but the growing evidence of his massive corruption — the man had his own private zoo, for heaven's sake — makes his return untenable and Russia's continued support for him highly questionable. The key point, though, is that the decision is the Ukrainian people's to make, not Putin's. The Russian leader's zero-sum view of the Ukraine situation is wrong. Just as escalating the situation will mean that everyone loses, including him, allowing the people of Ukraine to decide their own future and making the country more economically sound, less corrupt and more integrated with its neighbours to both the East and the West would be a good thing for everyone — Ukraine, Russia and the West. Putin's provocative actions are meant to be a show of strength — but this strongman act is really a sign of weakness. Putin is digging a hole, why not let him keep digging -- as I say time and again, this is not our problem so lets not let the Necons on this side of the pond goat us into another expensive unnecessary misadventure. On Tuesday President Obama unveiled an ambitious $3.9 trillion budget blueprint that seeks billions of dollars in fresh spending to boost economic growth but also pledges to tame the national debt by raising taxes on the wealthy, slashing payments to health providers and overhauling the nation's immigration laws. The request sent to Congress for the 2015 fiscal year offers a smorgasbord of liberal policy ideas at a time when riling up the Democratic base and drawing a vivid contrast with Republicans are critical to Obama's hopes of preserving his party's imperiled majority in the Senate. His blueprint includes some targeted spending cuts, but relies primarily on more than $1 trillion in new taxes to slow borrowing over the next decade — with much of the burden falling on major businesses and the wealthy. While some of the proceeds would go toward deficit reduction, Obama also calls for more than $55 billion in new spending on defense, roads and bridges, universal preschool education and expanded tax credits for the poor. Republicans immediately dismissed President Barack Obama's new budget as nothing more than a Democratic manifesto for this fall's congressional campaigns. EFTA01133142 In billions of dollars Decrease from 2014 Change from 2014 0 *10% Increase from 2014 State and other international programs $42.6 Housing and Urban 532.6 Development Health 8. Human Services $73.7 Homeland Security $38.2 National Aeraiaubcs $17.5 & Space Adninistraticri Environments Protection Agency $7.9 $22.2 Agriculture $12.4 Treasury Defense $495.6 $16.7 Justice $11.8 $4.5 Labor General Services Small Baseless Corps of Administration $0.2 Adrrmistration $0.7 Engineers Education e r Affairs $68.6 Veterans ■ $65.3 • ent National Selena Foundation O Transpottabon Social Security $8.8 Commerce AdminnUatiOn Otherlunchanged $1.1 2015 Opportunity. Corporation $55.4 Growth, and fp National & Security Initiative Community Semi:, $11.5 Interior $19.2 Other Agencies To achieve Obama's agenda, however, Congress would have to approve his ideas -- an unlikely prospect in an election year. While the budget opens the door to a few potential areas of bipartisan agreement - including an overhaul of business taxes that would generate cash for infrastructure — it retreats from other compromises. For example, Obama does not propose using a less-generous measure of inflation to calculate Social Security benefits, a move that would significantly slow spending growth in the program. Obama included the proposal, known as the chained consumer price index, in last year's budget in a failed bid to strike a grand bargain on the debt with Republicans. "Our budget is about choices, it's about our values," Obama said during an appearance at Powell Elementary School in the District. "As a country we've got to make a decision if we're going to protect tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans or if we're going to make smart investments necessary to create jobs and grow our economy, and expand opportunity for every American." Republicans quickly rejected the president's choices, however, complaining that his request would bust the caps on agency budgets that he and congressional Democrats had agreed to set in a compromise enacted barely three months ago. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) derided the request as "a clear sign this president has given up on any efforts to address our serious fiscal challenges that are undermining the future of our kids and grandkids." "After years of fiscal and economic mismanagement, the president has offered perhaps his most irresponsible budget yet," Boehner said in a statement. "Despite signing last year's bipartisan budget deal — and touting it as an accomplishment — the president now proposes violating that agreement with a spending surge. What's more, he proposes raising even more taxes — not to reduce the deficit but to spend more taxpayer money." Added House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.): "This budget isn't a serious document; it's a campaign brochure." In his message to Congress, Obama argues that his policies have the deficit well in hand -- and would improve the nation's fiscal outlook in the years to come. His request proposes to reduce borrowing by an additional $1.4 trillion by 2024, building on $4 trillion in deficit-reduction enacted by Congress since the budget wars began three years ago. As a result, the White House projects a deficit of $564 billion in 2015, or 3.1 percent of the economy, down from $649 billion this year and 3.1 percent of GDP. By 2024, Obama projects a deficit of just $434 billion, or 1.6 percent of the overall economy, the EFTA01133143 smallest deficit since 2007, before the Great Recession dealt a terrible blow to government finances. A shrinking deficit would reduce borrowing, thereby allowing the overall debt to grow more slowly. The White House estimates that the debt would shrink to 69 percent of the economy by 2024, compared to 74.4 percent today. Those projections are far rosier than those made recently by the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office. Under current law, the CBO forecasts that the deficit will rise to 4 percent of GDP in 2024 and that the debt will grow to 79 percent of GDP. The Obama budget would build on a spending deal reached late last year between Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the chairs of their respective chamber's budget committees. Under the deal, which largely replaces the deep domestic and defense cuts known as sequestration for two years, agency spending levels are set through September 2015. In his budget, Obama argues that the deal provides insufficient spending; he proposes $56 billion in additional funding to agencies, offset by $28 billion in alternative spending cuts and tax hikes. The new spending, known as an Opportunity, Growth and Security Initiative, will pump money into preschool programs, the National Institutes of Health, manufacturing institutes, climate research, job training and a new parental leave proposal, among other benefits for the middle class. Obama would also expand a tax credit for poor, working-class Americans valued at $6o billion over 10 years. To pay for those initiatives, the president takes aim at a variety of tax breaks that benefit the wealthy — limiting the value of retirement savings accounts, a loophole known as "carried interest" that allows many private equity and hedge fund managers to reduce their tax burden, among others. Reprising one tax proposal from last year that also hits middle class and lower income Americans, Obama proposes a new tax on tobacco to pay for the early-childhood initiative. After 2015, Obama proposes to replace the remainder of sequestration with a combination of tax hikes as well as cuts in other mandatory spending programs, such as Medicare. Obama would seek, for example, to raise premiums for wealthy seniors and force drug companies to offer larger discounts on prescription drugs. Like the CBO, the Obama administration does not paint an overly optimistic picture of economic growth over the next decade, with an average inflation-adjusted growth rate of just 2.6 percent per year over the next 10 years. Rather, the president sees a rosier budget picture due primarily to his proposal to increase tax revenue. In 2024, Obama projects collecting about $500 billion more in taxes than would be the case under current law. EFTA01133144 Obama budget sees higher revenue, lower spending than CBO Revenues and spending as % of GDP, 2013-2024 (projected) 25 23 21 19 17 15 CBO SPENDING PROJECTION (CURRENT LAW) OBAMA SPENDING PROJECTION OBAMA REVENUE PROJECTION CBO REVENUE PROJECTION (CURRENT LAW) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 SOURCE: White House 2015 budget CBO. GRAPH IC: The Washington Post. Published March 4, 2014 The Republicans immediately denounced the President's budget as dead on arrival. But why? First of all for the Conservatives who claim to want to cut the deficit, the President's budget is a serious blueprint to accomplish this goal. And yes it does so by raising taxes on the wealthy, but every serious economist will tell you that there is no way to erase the deficit without raising taxes — thirty plus years of supply-side economics have shown us that we can't grow out of the country's deficit dilemma by austerity alone. I can understand where Republicans and some Democrats could have concerns about some of the cuts and spending, because I do. But one of the largest concerns in the country, if not the #1 is jobs, the $55 billion is far too little, especially since some of this will go towards military spending. There are serious challenges facing America that we can solve, especially with $3.9 trillion. But this will require a reassignment of priorities. And yes it will require additional taxes. We have to start repairing the country's crumbling infrastructure. It is our moral responsibility to provide social programs that protect and help our children, elderly and the poor. And we could cut the defense budget by $200 billion and not sacrifice one iota of safety because we have failed as a democracy if we are fighting wars on two fronts. Yes Putin maybe a knucklehead but guess what, he has no ambition to attack the US. And neither does, North Korea, Iran or China. Our biggest threats today come from small terrorist cells, who want to throw shoes at us to establish their street creds in their local neighborhoods. Even el Qaeda doesn't want to invade or overthrow the US. So why do we maintain eleven aircraft carriers, that can be destroyed by a $200,000 drone? I am not saying that the President Obama budget addresses everything but at least it is a serious start that should be received as a blueprint for compromise. EFTA01133145 ****** The two charts you need to see to understand Obama's new budget President Obama is just out with his newest budget request — which forecasts a dramatic reduction in deficits over the coming decade. The request paints a much rosier debt scenario than a report released by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office a month ago. In his budget request, Obama projects public debt as a percentage of gross domestic project falling to 69 percent by 2024, while the CBO has it rising to 79 percent — a difference of to percentage points, or roughly $2.7 trillion. Obama proposes policies to shrink deficit compared to current law Debt as % of GDR 2013-2024 (projected) 80 76 72 68 64 60 CBO DEBT PROJECTION (CURRENT LAW) OBAMA DEBT PROJECTION 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 SOURCE: White House 2015 budget, CBO. GRAPHIC: The Washington Post. Published March 4, 2014 This is largely because Obama assumes the passage of legislation that the CBO doesn't, and he assumes those laws will generate far more revenue over the next decade. In 2024, the spending/revenue gap (i.e., the annual deficit) in Obama's budget amounts to 1.6 percent of GDP. CBO's projected deficit is more than twice that, at 4 percent of GDP. The difference lies largely on the revenue side — Obama assumes hearty revenue increases coming from the elimination of tax breaks benefiting the wealthy. EFTA01133146 Obama budget sees higher revenue, lower spending than CBO Revenues and spending as % of GDP, 2013-2024 (projected) 25 23 21 19 17 15 CBO SPENDING PROJECTION (CURRENT LAW) OBAMA SPENDING PROJECTION OBAMA REVENUE PROJECTION CBO REVENUE PROJECTION (CURRENT LAW) 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 SOURCE: White House 2015 budget CBO. GRAPH IC: The Washington Post. Published March 4, 2014 Of course, these revenue increases assume a compliant Congress that works with the White House to pass major new legislation in the coming years. And the likelihood of that particular scenario is almost zero. As columnist David Ignatius wrote in his article — Putin's error in Ukraine is the kind that leads to catastrophe — this week in The Washington Post. Napoleon is said to have cautioned during an 1805 battle: "When the enemy is making a false movement we must take good care not to interrupt him." The citation is also sometimes rendered as "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake." Whatever the precise wording, the admonition is a useful starting point for thinking about the Ukraine situation. Vladimir Putin has made a mistake invading Crimea, escalating a crisis for Russia that has been brewing for many months. It might have been beneficial if President Obama could have dissuaded him from this error. But Putin's move into Crimea appeared to spring from a deeper misjudgment about the reversibility of the process that led to the breakup of Soviet Union in 1991. As David Remnick wrote last week in The New Yorker, Putin regards the fall of the Soviet Union as a "tragic error," and the Olympics celebrated his vision that a strong Russia is back. That attitude led Putin to what Secretary of State John Kerry described on Sunday as a "brazen act of aggression" and a "violation of international obligations." The further Russia wades into this revanchist strategy, the worse its troubles will become. Also we should not confuse Putin's nostalgic notion of re-assembling the Soviet empire with the wishes of the Russian people who overwhelming oppose intervention in Ukraine according to the state-run Russian Public Opinion Research Center found last month, that 93 percent of Russians are EFTA01133147 against it. Putin could benefit from learning some Russian history. "Small victorious wars" - the phrase coined by czarist interior minister Vyacheslav Plehve with regard to Russia's war on Japan in the early 20th century — have tended not to end well for their instigators. The Crimean War in the 19th century demonstrated the economic and technological backwardness of the autocratic system and showed the need for political, social, judicial, military and economic reforms, including the abolition of serfdom and the establishment of elected local self-government and trial by jury. The Russo-Japanese war, contrary to Plehve's intent, led to the first Russian revolution and forced the regime to grant a parliament and recognize political and civil liberties. World War I contributed to the collapse of the czarist system. The Afghanistan invasion precipitated the disintegration of the Soviet dictatorship. Putin may yet regret the day he decided to send troops into Ukraine. Putin's Russia may well make more mistakes: We may see a cascading chain of error that brings Russian troops deeper into Ukraine and sets the stage for civil war. Those are the kind of miscalculations that lead to catastrophic consequences, and Obama would be wise to seek to deter Russian aggression without specifying too clearly what the U.S. ladder of escalation might be. But Americans and Europeans should agree that this is a story about Putin's violation of the international order. Yes we could interrupt Russia's mistakes, but so far Putin insists on doing the wrong thing. So why not allow him to keep digging. Kerry called on Putin to "undo this act of invasion." The Russian leader would save himself immense grief by following Kerry's advice, but that seems unlikely. His mistake in Sevastopol may lead to others elsewhere, though hopefully Putin will avoid reckless actions. But the more Putin seeks to assert Russia's strength, he will actually underline its weakness. Intervention in most instances is a mistake and Putin sending Russian troops into Crimea may be his biggest. There are many valid criticisms to be made of Obama's foreign policy, especially in Syria, but the notion that Putin's attack is somehow the United States' fault is perverse. ****** How the Ukraine crisis ends By Henry A. Kissinger: March 5.2014 Henry A. Kissinger was secretary of state from 1973 to 1977. Public discussion on Ukraine is all about confrontation. But do we know where we are going? In my life, I have seen four wars begun with great enthusiasm and public support, all of which we did not know how to end and from three of which we withdrew unilaterally. The test of policy is how it ends, not how it begins. Far too often the Ukrainian issue is posed as a showdown: whether Ukraine joins the East or the West. But if Ukraine is to survive and thrive, it must not be either side's outpost against the other — it should function as a bridge between them. Russia must accept that to try to force Ukraine into a satellite status, and thereby move Russia's bothers again, would doom Moscow to repeat its history of self-fulfilling cycles of reciprocal pressures with Europe and the United States. The West must understand that, to Russia, Ukraine can never be just a foreign country. Russian history began in what was called Kievan-Rus. The Russian religion spread from there. Ukraine has been part of Russia for centuries, and their histories were intertwined before then. Some of the most important battles for Russian freedom, starting with the Battle of Poltava in 1709 , were fought on Ukrainian soil. The Black Sea Fleet — Russia's means of projecting power in the Mediterranean — is EFTA01133148 based by long-term lease in Sevastopol, in Crimea. Even such famed dissidents as Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and Joseph Brodsky insisted that Ukraine was an integral part of Russian history and, indeed, of Russia. The European Union must recognize that its bureaucratic dilatoriness and subordination of the strategic element to domestic politics in negotiating Ukraine's relationship to Europe contributed to turning a negotiation into a crisis. Foreign policy is the art of establishing priorities. The Ukrainians are the decisive element. They live in a country with a complex history and a polyglot composition. The Western part was incorporated into the Soviet Union in 1939 , when Stalin and Hitler divided up the spoils. Crimea, 6o percent of whose population is Russian , became part of Ukraine only in 1954 , when Nikita Khrushchev, a Ukrainian by birth, awarded it as part of the 3ooth-year celebration of a Russian agreement with the Cossacks. The west is largely Catholic; the east largely Russian Orthodox. The west speaks Ukrainian; the east speaks mostly Russian. Any attempt by one wing of Ukraine to dominate the other — as has been the pattern — would lead eventually to civil war or break up. To treat Ukraine as part of an East-West confrontation would scuttle for decades any prospect to bring Russia and the West — especially Russia and Europe — into a cooperative international system. Ukraine has been independent for only 23 years; it had previously been under some kind of foreign rule since the 14th century. Not surprisingly, its leaders have not learned the art of compromise, even less of historical perspective. The politics of post-independence Ukraine clearly demonstrates that the root of the problem lies in efforts by Ukrainian politicians to impose their will on recalcitrant parts of the country, first by one faction, then by the other. That is the essence of the conflict between Viktor Yanukovych and his principal political rival, Yulia Tymoshenko. They represent the two wings of Ukraine and have not been willing to share power. A wise U.S. policy toward Ukraine would seek a way for the two parts of the country to cooperate with each other. We should seek reconciliation, not the domination of a faction. Russia and the West, and least of all the various factions in Ukraine, have not acted on this principle. Each has made the situation worse. Russia would not be able to impose a military solution without isolating itself at a time when many of its borders are already precarious. For the West, the demonization of Vladimir Putin is not a policy; it is an alibi for the absence of one. Putin should come to realize that, whatever his grievances, a policy of military impositions would produce another Cold War. For its part, the United States needs to avoid treating Russia as an aberrant to be patiently taught rules of conduct established by Washington. Putin is a serious strategist — on the premises of Russian history. Understanding U.S. values and psychology are not his strong suits. Nor has understanding Russian history and psychology been a strong point of U.S. policymakers. Leaders of all sides should return to examining outcomes, not compete in posturing. Here is my notion of an outcome compatible with the values and security interests of all sides: 1. Ukraine should have the right to choose freely its economic and political associations, including with Europe. 2. Ukraine should not join NATO, a position I took seven years ago, when it last came up. 3. Ukraine should be free to create any government compatible with the expressed will of its people. Wise Ukrainian leaders would then opt for a policy of reconciliation between the various parts of their EFTA01133149 country. Internationally, they should pursue a posture comparable to that of Finland. That nation leaves no doubt about its fierce independence and cooperates with the West in most fields but carefully avoids institutional hostility toward Russia. 4. It is incompatible with the rules of the existing world order for Russia to annex Crimea. But it should be possible to put Crimea's relationship to Ukraine on a less fraught basis. To that end, Russia would recognize Ukraine's sovereignty over Crimea. Ukraine should reinforce Crimea's autonomy in elections held in the presence of international observers. The process would include removing any ambiguities about the status of the Black Sea Fleet at Sevastopol. These are principles, not prescriptions. People familiar with the region will know that not all of them will be palatable to all parties. The test is not absolute satisfaction but balanced dissatisfaction. If some solution based on these or comparable elements is not achieved, the drift toward confrontation will accelerate. The time for that will come soon enough. THIS WEEK's QUOTES Broadly shared prosperity is not only a social value and a social justice value, it is a civic value and (in a democracy) it should be an overriding importance to all us and every policy that we develop. Mark Shields BEST VIDEO OF THE WEEK Electronic Pick Pocketing RFID chips credit cards may not be as secured as promised Web Link: https://ajoutube.googleapis.com/v/ILAFlaysQH1v%26sns-em EFTA01133150 AMAZING VIDEO Really fantastic images Web Link; https://mail.gogle.com/mailhil0Pui=2&ik=875c48a4768cview=att&th=144961c00a5ca4b5&attid . I &disp=safthzve THIS WEEK's MUSIC This week I would like to share the music of Herbie Hancock who is and will always be one of the most revered and controversial figures in jazz -- just as his mentor Miles Davis was when he was alive. Unlike Miles, who pressed ahead relentlessly and never looked back until near the very end, Hancock has cut a zigzagging forward path, shuttling between almost every development in electronic and acoustic jazz and R&B over the last third of the loth century and into the 21st. Though grounded in Bill Evans' jazz purity and able to absorb blues, funk, gospel, and even modern classical influences, Hancock's piano and keyboard voices are entirely his own, with their own urbane harmonic and complex, earthy rhythmic signatures -- and young pianists cop his licks constantly. Having studied engineering and professing to love gadgets and buttons, Hancock was perfectly suited for the electronic age; he was one of the earliest champions of the Rhodes electric piano and Hohner clavinet, and would field an ever-growing collection of synthesizers and computers on his electric dates. Yet his love for the grand piano never waned, and despite his peripatetic activities all around the musical map, his piano style continued to evolve into tougher, ever more complex forms. He is as much at home trading riffs with a smoking funk band as he is communing with a world-class post-bop rhythm section -- and that drives purists on both sides of the fence up the wall. Herbert Jeffrey "Herbie" Hancock (born Apri112, 1940) is an American pianist, keyboardist, bandleader and composer. As part of Miles Davis's Second Great Quintet, Hancock helped to redefine the role of a jazz rhythm section and was one of the primary architects of the "post-bop" sound. He was one of the first jazz musicians to embrace music synthesizers and funk music (characterized by syncopated drum beats). Hancock's music is often melodic and accessible; he has had many songs "cross-over" and achieved success among pop audiences. His music embraces elements of funk and soul while adopting freer stylistic elements from jazz. In his jazz improvisation, he possesses a unique creative blend of jazz, blues, and modern classical music, with harmonic stylings much like the styles of Claude Debussy and Maurice Ravel. For me, Herbie's signature masterwork is Maiden Voyage first released in 1965 which I describe as "a perfect song" because it is so special that no matter who else has re-recorded it, no one has done it better. Hancock's best-known solo works include "Cantaloupe Island", "Watermelon Man" (later performed by dozens of musicians, including bandleader Mongo Santamaria), "Chameleon", and the singles "I Thought It Was You" and "Rockit". His 2007 tribute album River: The Joni Letters won the 2008 Grammy Award for Album of the Year, only the second jazz album ever to win the award, after Getz/Gilberto in 1965. With this said, I invite you to enjoy the music of a living legend and one of the greatest musicians of our generation Mr. Herbie Hancock EFTA01133151 Herbie Hancock - Maiden Voyage -- http://youtu.be/IUUhifXOToo Herbie Hancock - Watermelon Man -- http://youtu.be/RzPZvKSdN7g Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, Stanley Clarke & Omar Hakim - Cantelope Island -- http://youtu.be/JixfzsQWZ8c Herbie Hancock & Miles Davis — Watermelon Man -- http://youtu.be/s Fp ooJSaQ Herbie Hancock & Jaco Pastorius — Chameleon -- http://youtu.be/uuVVEOcwo iHnetic ti/y ieHoauiti ld) ciocekifLe9a ev t l6 featuring Marcus sigs Miller & Roy Hargrove — http: He / /youtu.be/edUGRcKHccA rbieHaiicockfeaturingrarcus Miller & Roy Hargrove — Herbie Hancock's Imagine, featuring Pink, Seal, India Arie http: / /youtu.be/RNVz7mHRIrs Butterfly -- Spider -- - Imagine -- Herbie Hancock - Tell Me a Bedtime Story -- httpiyoutu.be/4f8SbbdrEQg Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and Billy Cobham http://youtu.be/6SgFDrWeJGo Herbie Hancock, Ron Carter and Billy Cobham http://voutu.be/dqv8E3Enno Herbie Hancock - I Didn't Know What Time It Was -- http://youtu.be/nuUXY4pTUxk Herbie Hancock & Wayne Shorter Quartet — Round Midnight -- littpayoutu.be/VPGcpm3visU HearnbcioecHk,amncilolcekr,&sh%oVrtayn ere_Shortiebrut-eFt000tp Milreisnt_s_ h-- http: ttph, / O/ uy tout .1 btuo.b/4M a-FXs8 igeaa52: p4 — Eye Of The Hurricane -- - Speak Like A Child -- I hope that you have enjoyed this week's offerings and wish you and yours a wonderful week. Sincerely, Greg Brown Gregory. Brown Chairman & CEO EFTA01133152 (nynoxy Ham n ( 1.0 I.( EFTA01133153