From: Gregory Brown

From: Gregory Brown To: undisclosed-recipients:; Bcc: [email protected] Subject: .Greg Brown's Weekend Reading and Other Things.... 09/21/2014 Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 07:11:48 +0000 Attachments: How_come_nobody_talks_about_the_Obama_bull_market_Michael_Hiltzik_LA_Times_Sept._8,_2014.docx; Obama Outperforms_Rcagan_On_Jobs,_Growth_And_Investing_Forbes_9.5.2014.docx; Obama? s_advaictages_as_a_relucumt_warrio_r_David_Ignatius_TWP_Sept._11,_2014.docx; The_Planct_Just_Had_lts_Warmest_August_On_Record_Huff Post_Sept._15,_2014.docx; Take_a_Decp_Breath_Thomas_Fricdman_NYT_09.25.2014.docx; Obama, in_Speech_on_ISIS,PromiscsSustainedEffonto_RoutMilitantsMarkLanderNYT09.10.2014.docx; Scottishindcpendence,_Whatwouldhavchappencdif Scotland_voted_Yes,_I've_gotarough_idcaz-Scan_Ogrady_The_Independent09.19.14.docx; Wilson_Picket_bio.doex Inline-Images: image.png; image(1).png; image(2).png; image(3).png; imagc(4).png; image(5).png; image(6).png; imagc(7).png; image(8).pn image(9).png; imagc(10).png; ionise( ).png; image(12).png DEAR FRIEND In life there are people who are cut from a different cloth and march to a different drummer. John Quincy Adams would be one and obviously Abraham Lincoln. Teddy Roosevelt more so than FDR. And for my conservative friends Barry Goldwater would be on this list. One would have to include LBJ who realized that by righting the wrongs of segregation his Democrats would lose the South for generations to come. And today, I would like to add Senator Elizabeth Warren to this august list of out-liners and iconoclast. Not for what she has done as much as for what she is doing today. In Oklahoma, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) and her brothers grew up in "an America that invested in kids like us and helped build a future where we could flourish." But, as she writes in her memoir, A Fighting Chance, "Today the game is rigged — rigged to work for those who have money and power... The optimism that defines us as a people has been beaten and bruised. It doesn't have to be this way." Warren, a former Harvard Law School professor, is an expert on how Wall Street and the banking industry are destroying the middle class. She's put that knowledge to powerful use on Capitol Hill, rapidly becoming the most authoritative and articulate voice of the Democratic Party's progressive wing. Many are urging her to run for president and I for one believes that she would be a great President. Her mantra to everyone who will listen is, "to ask of their senators, to ask of their congressman or congresswoman: whose side are you on?Are you therefor the folks who are out there trying to work fora living, or are you just there for the millionaires and billionaires? Because she believes that the only chance we've (the collective Americans) got is if those families will turn back to their government and say, 'I demand that you work for me, not for the billionaires, not for the millionaires. That you workfor me.'" This month in an interview on Moyers & Company Here are some excerpts.... Web Link: WARREN: The middle class has been pushed right to the edge. They are on a cliff. And increasing numbers are falling off every single day. Families live in a much more dangerous economic world than they did a generation ago. They're moms and dads who worked hard, played by the rules. They went to college. They bought a house. They had kids. And then they ended up in financial collapse. MOYERS: --that first talk, and the middle class is still struggling. In fact, their income, adjusted for inflation is lower than it was five years ago, and they've lost about three percent of their purchasing power since then. Yet stocks are soaring, the economy is expanding, and the benefits are not going to the middle class families. Why EFTA01154025 can't Washington do better by them? WARREN: So I think Washington doesn't do better by them because Washington isn't trying to do better by them. If you look at Washington as a whole, I think this is the fundamental problem in our system right now. Washington works for those who can hire armies of lobbyists, armies of lawyers, and get just the rules they want. It doesn't work so well for American families. Look, we know the things we need to do. Raise the minimum wage. Nobody should work full time and still live in poverty. Minimum wage nationally hasn't been raised in over seven years. We need to make suit that we have real rules on equal pay for equal work. We need to lower the interest rate on student loans. In every case, we in the United States Senate have a majority. All of the Democrats have voted in favor of this. And occasionally, we even pick up a Republican. The Republicans have filibustered in the Senate. They won't even bring things to a vote in the House of Representatives. This is really a case where one party has said, the usual rules of governing, you know, we'll come together, we'll try to talk about these things, we'll try to work something out, their answer is no, no, no. They're not there to help middle class families. MOYERS: But isn't part of the problem that the Democratic Party is divided between its corporate Democrats, I mean, right now, more corporate and business associations, PACs, Political Action Committees, are contributing to Democrats in seven states, where the race is close this fall, than they are to the Republican challengers. Isn't the Democratic Party so divided between its progressive wing and its corporate wing that it can't really act in concert? WARREN: Well, actually, I disagree. MOYERS: Okay. WARREN: Am I unhappy with the influence of money in Washington? You bet I am. But look at these issues. We had every single Democrat who said, it's time to raise the minimum wage. Every single Democrat who said, and listen to this, it is more important to cut the interest rate on student loans than it is to protect tax loopholes for millionaires and billionaires. Every single Democrat who said, equal pay for equal work matters. I should throw in one more. Every single Democrat who said, your employers, it's none of your employers' business what kind of birth control you're using. So it's-- we've got to build on our successes. And these are successes. Not in the sense that we've gotten them through yet. But in the sense that we've pulled together, we've focused on them, and we've said, these are the things that Democrats stand for. We're going to make sure Americans get a fair shot. We're going to get out there and fight for America, and these are ways that we can do it. And we've all stood up behind that. MOYERS: But if Democrats really had their act together, if they weren't, as so many people think, apparently feckless, wouldn't that message be in every speech, every ad, every campaign across the country right now? Couldn't, shouldn't they be running a national campaign on raising the minimum wage? Mich is supported by 70 percent of the public? WARREN: We have a lot of new people in the Senate in particular. And a lot of new ideas for how we should be pushing to build an America going forward. Let me put it this way, because this is how I see it. There are two key things that we need to build a country, to rebuild our middle class. The first is that we need a set of rules that just works. We knew this coming out of the Great Depression. Nobody should be able to steal your purse on Main Street, and no one should be able to steal your pension on Wall Street. We need tough rules so that financial markets are fair, so that they're transparent, so you don't get cheated. That's one part of it. The second part of it is that we have to agree together to build the things that only government can build. And I think of it this way. The things that help us build a future, we have to make the investments in education so that every kid gets a fighting chance. We have to make the investments in basic infrastructure, in roads and bridges and power grids and all those things. And the third thing, we have to commit to and build again is our investment in research. This is what has made us such an extraordinary people. I talk about these because together, this is how we build a future. It takes lots of individual initiative, lots of people who make good decisions; some people will make bad decisions. But this is the part, the core that gives us the opportunity to build a future. And we need to be committed to that. MOYERS: But can you get that commitment if you don't have an open debate on the very issues you talk about? I mean, is it healthy? I believe you when you say you have no plans to run for president. I don't think you really want to run for president. But isn't it essential for a party to debate those issues within its own ranks? WARREN: --but it's why when you talk about— do we need to do better? Do Democrats need to do better? Of course we need to do better. Of course we do. But look at the danger these guys are poshng. We have got to make these differences clear and we've got to get people enraged to say, wait a minute, I'm not voting for somebody like Mitch McConnell who says it is more important to protect billionaires than it is to protect kids who are trying to go to college. EFTA01154026 MOYERS: It seems to me there's something official Washington won't talk about including many progressives. John Maynard Keynes, the great economist of the last century said quote *The same rule of self-destructive financial calculation governs every walk of life. We destroy the beauty of the countryside because the unappropriated splendors of nature have no economic value. We are capable of shutting off the sun and the stars because they do not pay a dividend." And isn't it the case that we're likewise shutting out millions of Americans who work hard for a living, can't find a decent job at a living wage because our political and our financial elites consider dividends more important than the lived experience of real people? WARREN: I think that's right. I think that's exactly where we are in this country right now. And I think this is what we're trying to fight back. You know, I frame this as the question of how we build a future. And I talk about the investments we make together. And how those investments give every kid a fighting chance. That that's what we're supposed to do. We're supposed to build opportunity. This is about our children and our grandchildren. This is about the kind of country we want to be. This is about the kind of people we are. We aren't a people who are just blind in the pursuit of profits. That's not who we are. And we can't let-- those among us who are control our government and direct our country. If those are the people they want to be, so be it. But our government is supposed to be there to work for us, for all of us, for this whole country, to help build a future, not for some of our kids, but for all of our kids. That is our moral responsibility. That's what we are required to do. We are called to do this. MOYERS: I recommend people read "it Fighting Chance, "your latest book. But I tell you, I go back quite often to "The Two-Income Trap" which is what we talked about ten years ago. WARREN: We did. MOYERS: Why middle class parents are going broke. And ten years after you wrote this-- ten years after we knew this was a burning issue and you predicted that we were going to have a crisis in America if we didn't deal with it, it's worse. WARREN: You know, Bill, there are pieces we have to remember that have gotten better. We've got a consumer agency fighting on our side. We've-- we-- but it is worse. It's worse because families are pressed harder than ever. Families are squeezed right to the edge all over this country. The only chance we've got is if those families will turn back to their government and say, I demand that you work for me, not for the billionaires, not for the millionaires. That you work for me. That you put a set of rules in place that give me a chance, that give my children a chance, that give my grandchildren a chance. That's our only hope for this country. And I tell you, we're getting down to the eleventh hour on this. We can't take much more of this. We can't shut the government down again and just blow through billions of dollars for nothing. And shake the confidence of the rest of the world that looks around and says, what's happened to the United States? Here was this optimistic, prosperous country that is so intent on an internal political fight that it won't even take care of itself much less lead the rest of the world. We can do better than that and we must do better than that. My father use to say to only pull a gun out in an argument when there is an immediate threat and then understand by doing so, you have loss the argument. I say this because having just returned from London where there is a concern over what NATO should do to support Ukraine against its quarrels with Russia and then returning back home to the US where television news pundits are fanning the flames for war against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Unless NATO members are willing to fight on Ukraine's behalf, the alliance should refrain from meddling, tacitly acknowledging the existence of a Russian sphere of influence, much as it did in 1956 regarding Hungary and in 1968 with Czechoslovakia. I realize that some of those incidents are seen as failures but proud moments in freedom's march onward. Because when playing the long game — the presence of Hungary, the Czech Republic and Slovakia are in the ranks of today's NATO testifies to that truth. Of course, there is a logic to what NATO is doing. It is based on the inertia of the Cold War, fueled by an economic crisis. This means that instead of transforming economic and social structures, European leadership is throwing more resources into a system that doesn't work. And this means expansion and conflict. So rather than further provoking Russia by suggesting that NATO's eastward expansion will continue, the alliance should remove any doubts about its willingness to defend the territory it currently claims. Doing so requires more than brave speeches and more than creating a modest "rapid reaction force," which will inevitably look more impressive on paper than in reality. And putting troops in Poland and the Baltic Republics to intimidate Vladimir Putin, which some European hawks are suggesting will only validate his (sometimes justified) paranoia. As Boris Kagarlitsky wrote last week in a op-ed in the New York Times, the debate about the role of NATO in Ukraine is starting too late: Western leaders already made a fatal decision to back the new Kiev government no matter what it is doing and no matter what the real situation is on the ground. That means that they will bear responsibility for the inevitable failures and disasters that will follow. We can debate whether what happened in Kiev in February zom was an uprising or a coup =, EFTA01154027 but one thing is dear: Ousted President Viktor Yanukovich was elected legally and democratically in a competitive election. He was corrupt, no doubt about it, but there are plenty of corrupt leaders in the West. Western logic toward Ukraine is based on the inertia of the Cold War, fueled by an economic crisis. NATO involvement will mean more conflict. Of course, Western press blames Russia for what is happening in Ukraine — it is easier to do that than to analyze a complex situation or to recognize Western leaders' own errors. And blaming President Vladimir Putin is also easy because it is true that Russia is in no way a model of democracy. The country has a well-known record of electoral fraud and plenty of political prisoners. A year ago, Ukraine represented a merging democratic model for the post-Soviet region. But now, since the November 2013 coup, the country has its share of political prisoners, death squads and electoral fraud. As for the scale of corruption, the current Kiev government seems worse than the Yanukovich administration. For two months, the Ukrainian army bombed Donetsk and Luhansk without even offering them any humanitarian corridor or letting aid workers and journalists in. While the international community is rightly unhappy with Israel's operations in Gaza, much worse is happening in eastern Ukraine with little protest. The West is wrong to see President Putin and his entourage as the enemies. These people in power in Moscow are as liberal and pro-Western as they can be given the current mood in Russia. Their only goal is to be friends of the West, and to send their children and their money to London and Zurich. They even supply the Ukrainian army with spare parts for tanks and helicopters that are being used to fight against pro-Russian Donetsk forces and Russian volunteers. If there is to be a change of government and a free election in Russia, a leadership will emerge that will be far more hostile to the West and less liberal than Putin. Back in the United States, President Barack Obama is being pressured by both Republicans and Democrats across the country to at least bomb ISIS fighters in Iraq and Syria, and for the hawks he should send troops to combat the Sunni jihadists who call themselves the Islamic State and somehow a national security threat. Even uber- liberal Chris Matthew has joined the chorus demanding that if Congress refuses to vote for a war against ISIS, President Obama "should take the fight to Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. ISIS, the group that has been beheading our fellow citizens." The key to winning the battle against ISIS, analysts say, starts with the courting countries in the region. Me most important element of this coalition is the local and the regional: said Fawaz Gerges, chairman of Middle Eastern studies at the London School of Economics. The US. and allies won't put boots on the ground.... The Iraqis, Kurds, and Syrians will basically be doing the fighting." Defeating the group known for horrific acts of terror -- seizing towns, slaughtering civilians, beheading many people including journalists -- will demand much more than military action, said Gerges. "The most important element is to deny ISIS its social oxygen." ISIS has blended in with local communities "to portray itself as defender,"he said. Stopping ISIS means convincing Sunni Arabs — who have felt disaffected by the Iraqi government -- that ISIS is an enemy. The goal is to "drive a wedge between local Sunni communities and ISIS," Gerges said. To that end, Saudi Arabia and Jordan, which are Sunni states, can play a critical role, Gerges said. They're home to many Sunnis, including former Iraqi military officers who fled after the U.S. invasion in 2003. "I bet you US., Saudi and Jordanian officials are working 24 hours a day to try to convince these leaders to join their alliance, and to in turn convince their counterparts to stand up against the Islamic State." "Saudi Arabia is the only authority in the region with the power and legitimacy to bring ISIS down,"two analysts write in The New York Times. The country "effectively eradicated al Qaeda in the kingdom," write Nawaf Obaid of Harvard's Belfer Center and Saud al-Sarhan of the King Faisal Center for Research and Islamic Studies. It also "has a unique form of religious credibility and legitimacy,"sinee Saudi Arabia is the epicenter of Islam. Having Saudi Arabia "in the lead can only add to the legitimacy of the campaign against ISIL," said Dennis Ross, a former U.S. ambassador who is now with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. "The Arab states in this campaign must also provide military support — involving forces, arms, training and subsidies for the tribes, intelligence, and diplomatic and even religious efforts to discredit ISIL." These efforts could bring about an alignment between Saudi Arabia and Iran in fighting the militants, said Stephen Biddle, a political science professor at George Washington University. "The Middle East is characterized by a welter of conflicting fault lines and interests," he said. When Muslim nations have aligned along Sunni and Shia lines, Saudi Arabia and Iran moved further apart, 'and infect waged a proxy war against each other." Now, Biddle said, new fault lines pit radical groups against authoritarian governments threatened by them -- and on that, the two nations could come together. The Iranians have far more battle experience, particularly with asymmetric warfare, as well as fighting against guerrilla forces,"he said. The United States and Iran have a mutual interest in seeing ISIS defeated, and they should work together. The good news for President Obama is that the political winds have change as 47% of Americans say that they feel less safe than before 9/11. And as a result 61% of Amencans say that they support military action in Syria because it is in our national interest. Still, the idea that ISIS is a threat to U.S.' national security is ridiculous. Their stated goal is to create an Islamic state covering Iraq, Syria and parts of Lebanon, Jordon, Israel and Saudi Arabia, as well as parts of Turkey. With those countries as both targets and enemies, it is impossible to imagine that ISIS will continue to grow or even survive. War is ugly. Beheadings have been part of war and society for thousands of years. And to believe that ISIS is a major threat to the United States' national security because of beheadings is ridiculous. And as ridiculous, would be to restart the Cold War because the Europeans and Americans over-played their hands in the Ukraine. When are we here in the United States gonna to start playing the long game and stop being seated into every conflict. We live in a country where more than it,000 Americans die as a result of gun violence, yet a majority in Congress see no reason to enact stronger gun control laws, so why are we so squeamish over a bunch of beheadings. War is ugly.... Is ugly when there are beheadings and it is ugly when there are bombings and it is ugliest when it is hand to hand combat or street to street. ISIS/ISIL is an ugly scourge in our society and like any cancer it should be eradicated. But this has to be done by those closest taking the lead and not waiting for America to fight their fight. As important, while the cancer is being cleanse the countries at issue have to address the systemic problems that enable for organizations like ISIS/ISIL to attract followers. There will always be crazies but when crazies become Spartacus there is usually an underlying reason. And these reasons now have to be seriously addressed in the Middle East. Not by the Americans and Europeans but by the leadership in Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Kuwait UAE and Qatar, as well as Iran and Turkey and of course Israel These are the players in the region and regional conflicts require regional solutions.... EFTA01154028 I somehow got into dance, mostly modern dance in the to6os. First of all for all of the wrong reasons.... Female dancers.... But I soon came to appreciate dance in all forms. I followed Alvin Ailey of course, as well as, Joth Liman, Martha Graham, Robert Joffrey Louis Falco, Merce Cunningham, Fred Benjamin, Katherine Dunham, Twyla Tharp, the American Ballet Theatre and the New York City Ballet to mention a few. I was privileged to enjoy the mastery of Judith Jamison, Mikhail Baryshnikov, Gregory Hines, the incomparable Rudolf Nureyev dancing with Prima Ballerina Dame Margot Fonteyn, dancer turned choreographer George Faison and Harold Nicholas who with his older brother Fayard were probably the greatest tap dancers ever.... And this is not being disrespectful to Bill "Bolting/es" Robinson who started in the age of minstrel shows, moving to vaudeville, Broadway, the recording industry, Hollywood, radio and television and broke more racial barriers than almost anyone else in the world of entertainment. I was a regular at the Brooklyn Academy of Music, City Center, Westbeth, Broadway and Lincoln Center when I could afford it. And like many, by the iolios I thought that both modern dance and ballet was dying if not dead. Inspired by Dick Clark and of course, Soul Train I went on to create the international dance show Discomania in the early mos that was followed by an number of other syndicate television shows including Dance Fever and Dance Party. And although club dancing from The Paradise Garage to Studio 54 to Xenon to the Latin clubs in the South Bronx and the explosion of the break dancing phenomenon that developed in inner- city neighborhoods across the country in the to8os and of course music videos, but it is today's television dancing shows, Dancing with the Stars and So You Think You Can Dance that has created the current resurgence of dance in America. Four years ago when I was first turned on to So You Think You Can Dance, not only was I amazed by the quality of the dancing but its choreography and production values were like going from black & white to color television. Ever since I have become a loyal fan. Last weekend I did a binge viewing of this (t tth) season's So You Think You Con Dance, I was blown away by just how good everythins was in every way. The young dancers who made it to the top twenty were all wonderful and the top four were spectacular. The choreography was inventive and sometimes thought provoking. And the production value was as good as it gets.... As such I would love to share several videos from So You Think That You Can Dance for your enjoyment and hopefully you will become a fan if you are not already.... Valerie & Zack: Performance in the Top 4 to a piece choreograph by Tyce (Norio to the music, Pearls by Sade Web Link: htipionutu.bei8jUKemOR3tt Top Ten Routines from So You Think You Can Dance, Season 7 Web Link: bitp.ilymiladagaaLLSZWEISS BEST TAP DANCE NUMBER EVER? EFTA01154029 While I was researching this piece I came across this video from the Nicholas Brothers preforming in the Hollywood movie Stormy Weather, as this example of their dancing shows that they may have been the best that ever was The Nichols Brothers.... From the movie: STORM' WEATHER 1943 Web Link: httpsi/www youtube romirwatch7v•DF3ligki9g1g It is said that no less an authority on dance than Fred Astaire once said that this was in his opinion the best dance number ever put on film. One thing for sure, the Nicholas Brothers were without a doubt the best Tap Dance team ever, case closed. I have included the entire number including Cab Calloway's opening vocal. The dance starts at about the 1:3o mark Peer to peer fx payment platform gaining traction allows customers to exchange euros, US dollars and sterling at the midpoint of the interbank buy and sell rates, by matching the amount it receives in one currency with the amount it receives in the other. oint the evolution of exchange If you like me make any kind of international money transfer into a foreign currency, you might be interested in a service that a friend of mine pioneered called Midpoint. The idea which is finally getting some traction after a couple of false starts is to match people who have different international payment needs by linking them on a netting platform. The business has a US patent on its computerized business method of multi-currency, multi-party matching and the net upshot is that a user can save 8o% or more off what they might otherwise pay a bank. The trick is that users are always matched at the midpoint of the interbank bid-offer spread for their relevant currency pair for a small fee. Because it is completely transparent and does not require pre-funding, users save money even more money. Money is as safe as the safest banking alternative because funds are all kept in segregated trust account at major banks in the clients name so they never take credit risk on Midpoint. If you want to know more it is publicly listed on the Canadian Venture Exchange under the ticker MPT and can be found on the web at R47 ID EFTA01154030 The Slippery Slope Begins You would think that the smart people in our country would learn from previous mistakes. Obviously they don't, as there are people in both major parties are egging on President Obama to put "boots on the ground"as part of his announcement to the American people fight against the Islamic State — a vicious Sunni militant group known as ISIS or ISIL that is terrorizing parts of Iraq and Syria — would not mean a commitment of American ground troops. its I have said before, these American forces will not have a combat mission,"he said. But the Obama administration has a dilemma when it comes to the war in Iraq and Syria. On the one hand, the President desperately wants to persuade the public that the war will be limited, and that there will be no U.S. combat troops on the ground there. On the other hand, top administration officials have set the goal of "degrading and destroying"ISIS and have called it an "imminent threat to every interest we have." At a hearing this week with the Senate Armed Services Committee on U.S. policy in Iraq and Syria gave some insight into whether the administration will be able to wage a limited war against what it claims is a virtually unlimited threat. The first and perhaps most important revelation was from Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, who indicated that he would not hesitate to recommend that the president send in ground troops should the situation warrant it. So, the pledge of "no ground troops" is now "no ground troops unless we decide to send in ground troops." Dempsey was careful to suggest that if he were to recommend the use of ground forces -- or "dose combat advisers,"as he called them in one instance -- it would be on a "case-by-case basis." But the cases where he might seek approval for combat troops seemed like they could easily arise. One example was if ISIS recaptured the dam in Mosul and U.S. troops were needed to help get it back. Another was rescuing any U.S. pilot shot down in enemy territory. Even as the risk of putting ground troops into the middle of a war zone grows, the air war is accelerating. Bloomberg News has reported on the first "offensive"U.S. air strikes of the war. And at a Senate hearing on the same day, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) raised another possibility -- air strikes against the Assad regime in Syria in retaliation for attacks they might make on U.S.-trained forces there. While Gen. Dempsey tried to duck the question, but the Associated Press reported that the administration has already contemplated such a response. And Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) raised the prospect of needing to use U.S. ground troops to "dig" ISIS out of Syria, suggesting that no allied security force would be up to the task. Dempsey expressed confidence that U.S. forces would not be needed to defeat ISIS in Syria, but he offered no persuasive evidence as to why that would be the case. But the real issue, is that destroying ISIS/ISIL/the Islamic State, does not and will not address the underlying conditions that allowed the current situation to happen because as Thomas Friedman wrote this week in an op-ed in the New York Times — there is an existential struggle is taking place in the Arab world today and it is theirs not ours. And what concern him and me most about President Obama's decision to re-engage in Iraq is that it feels as if it's being done in response to some deliberately exaggerated fears — fear engendered by YouTube videos of the beheadings of two U.S. journalists — and fear that ISIS, a.k.a., the Islamic State, is coming to a mall near you. How did we start getting so afraid again so fast? Didn't we build a Department of Homeland Security? Obviously we should not dismiss ISIS. The President is right that ISIS needs to be degraded and destroyed. But when you act out of fear, you don't think strategically and you glide over essential questions, like why is it that Shiite Iran, which helped trigger this whole Sunni rebellion in Iraq, is scoffing at even coordinating with us, and Turlcey and some Arab states are setting limits on their involvement? And as Friedman wrote: When I read that, I think that Nader hfousavizadeli, who co-leads the global consulting firm Macro Advisory Partners, is correct when he says: "When it comes to intervening in the Arab world's existential struggle, we have to stop and ask ourselves why we have such a challenge getting them to help us save them.- So before we get in any deeper, let's ask some radical questions, starting with: What if we did nothing? But is ISIS really a problem for the United States? "The American interest is not just stability but the existence of a dynamic balance of power in which all players are effectively paralyzed so that no one who would threaten the United States emerges.... But the principle of balance of power does not mean that balance must be maintained directly. Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia have far more at stake in this than the United States. So long as they believe that the United States will attempt to control the situation, it is perfectly rational for them to back off and watch, or act in the margins, or even hinder the Americans. The United States must turn this from a balance of power between Syria and Iraq to a balance of power among this trio of regional powers. They have far more at stake and, absent the United States, they have no choice but to involve themselves. They cannot stand by and watch a chaos that could spread to them. Therefore, doing as little as possible and forcing regional powers into the fray, then in maintaining the balance of power in this coalition.- This may not be the right answer, but it's worth debating. 'fern's another question: What's this war really about? EFTA01154031 "This is a war over the soul of Islam — that is what differentiates this moment from all others,"argues Ahmad Khalidi, a Palestinian scholar associated with St. Antony's College, Oxford. Here is why: For decades, Saudi Arabia has been the top (under of the mosques and schools throughout the Muslim world that promote the most puritanical version of Islam, known as Salafism, which is hostile to modernity, women and religious pluralism, or even Islamic pluralism. Saudi financing for these groups is a byproduct of the ruling bargain there between the al-Saud family and its Salafist religious establishment, known as the Wahhabis. The al-Sauds get to rule and live how they like behind walls, and the Wahhabis get to propagate Salafist Islam both inside Saudi Arabia and across the Muslim world, using Saudi oil wealth. Saudi Arabia is, in effect, helping to fund both the war against ISIS and the Islamist ideology that creates ISIS members (some 1,000 Saudis are believed to be fighting with jihadist groups in Syria), through Salafist mosques in Europe, Pakistan, Central Asia and the Arab world. But this game has reached its limit. First, because ISIS presents a challenge to Saudi Arabia. ISIS says it is the "caliphate,"the center of Islam. Saudi Arabia believes it is the center. And, second, ISIS is threatening Muslims everywhere. Saudi Arabia cannot continue fighting ISIS and feeding the ideology that nurtures ISIS. It will hurt more and more Muslims. We, too, have to stop tolerating this. For years, the U.S. has "played the role of the central bank of Middle East stability," noted blousavir.adelt. Just as the European Central Bank funding delays the day that France has to go through structural reforms, America's security umbrella," always there no matter what the Saudis do, "has delayed the day that Saudi Arabia has toface up to its internal contradictions,"and reform its toxic ruling bargain. The future of Islam and our success against ISIS depend on it. So now we're off to war again. For the third time in a decade, the United States will be bombing people in the Islamic world, killing Muslims and wondering as we dump yet another payload into the sands of Afghanistan, Iraq, or coming soon, Syria, why those people down there hate us so. The U.S. Congress has voted to do this, sort of. What they agreed to vote on was the arming of the Free Syrian Army, the people we hope will be fighting on our side. They refused to vote, at least until after the election, on the air strikes we are already delivering over Iraq and will soon be delivering over Syria. But let's get to the next new war. A war that in many ways is a civil war where we are trying to be supportive of both sides. Yes zokes a dangerous time but a lot more dangerous in certain places in the world than others. Sure, anything can happen. But if you take the position that it will happen, the worst case scenario, that is, you'll never get in a car and certainly not on an airplane. You'll just lock yourself in the house and watch the moo news and the latest crime reports just to get yourself a little more scared when you go to bed that night or as a friend describes... the murder and mayhem reports.... And yes that's one way to live. But America, this country certainly wasn't built that way. As such, should we be held hostage because halfway around the world a bunch of crazies are trying to goat us into war with them, using the spectacle of public beheadings of a small number of westerners Resulting in calls for war because these same crazies are somehow about to come to America to provoke unbelievable havoc. Think about it even if several do make it to our shores how much destruction do you really believe that they will be able to do? It bothers me deeply to have people worry aloud about ISIS coming to get them personally -- I'm talking to the 14 percent who told pollsters they are seriously afraid of getting hit by terrorists themselves. Do they really believe these characters over there in Syria and Iraq have their own personal number? Do they? Is there a reasonable chance that your number is up because of what's going on in the desert of Arabia right now? I know the political hucksters love pushing the fear the button. They exalt in that word "homeland", that ominous term cooked up by the neocons to drive as off to the stupidest decision in history to go into Iraq, with the bugles blowing and the ideologues brimming with talk of converting the Arab Mideast into pleasant members of the United Nations, friendly neighbors of Israel, and oh, yes, moderate democracies. But that talk was for a purpose of getting us into a stupid war. What's the purpose now? Why push the Armageddon button now? Could it be that scaring people is one way to justify just about anything right wing, anything that exploits military force, anything that turns the United States into a relentless military presence, a machine really, in the Middle East, an endless adversary and killer of Arabs and other Muslims. People who do this can call themselves anything -- neocons, hawks, patriots, etc. What they are not are reliable stewards of American foreign policy. And what they are offering is not a solution as it only treats the symptom and not the underlying issues that created and feeds the current situation. Finally the fact that our leaders are talking up war which today is as stupid as it was in 194, Viet Nam and Bush/Cheney's wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and many other conflicts that are too numerous to mention as this is my rant of the week WEEK's READINGS Why Big Business and Industry are so negative on President °barna? EFTA01154032 Two weeks ago when the SSP 500 crossed 2,000 for the that time, you would have notched a 148% gain if you had bought stocks on the day of President Obama's Inauguration. Above, the New York Stock Exchange last week. You have to wonder why Big Business and industry are so negative on President Obama especially when they have been the beneficiaries of one of the greatest bull markets in history, except that nobody seems to call it that. Big business continues to grouse about the White House, as it has done pretty much nonstop since Jan. 20, 2009. The very day after the S&P record close (the index closed Monday at 2,001.54) came yet another attack on Obama's policies by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce this one a largely evidence-free assertion that the Affordable Care Act has incentivized employers to hire port-time workers over full-time ones? Neither the Bureau of Labor Statistics nor the Congressional Budget Office has found signs of this effect, which is a favorite right-wing shibboleth. The hostility of business and industry to Obama has become a byword over the years, from plutocrats complaining about being disrespected to bankers complaining that they're woefully misunderstood. Yet judging by the stock market's performance, no President has been as good for the capital markets since Bill Clinton (who also was detested by the business community). By some measures Obama also handily outranks that beacon of Republican business-friendliness, Ronald Reagan. Presidents at day 2,000 1933 to prownt 171.1% • Rs.^ blows* of r;,t -, 114 P ”ilat 142-1% I TI O u ir. TttrI1 * lel IMO Fin* Danocratsn.2•11111020•M Aynge sleCk pan Ma' 2.000 Own r . . Here are some rough figures to ponder: After their full eight years in office, Clinton had presided over a run-up in the S&P 500 of about 210%; Reagan 118%. Obama hasn't served his full term yet, of course, but as of Monday's close the S&P is showing a gain of 148%. If the market remains flat from here or gains, Obama will also have outrun Dwight Eisenhower, who notched a 129% gain during his term. Obamabeats Reagan and trails only Clinton among postwar presidents in many partial- term measures, too. At day 2,000 of his term, as was calculated by Russ Britt of MarketWatch in July, the stock market had gained 142%; for Reagan it was up about 88% and for Clinton 176% at the same stage. And the booby prize belongs to George W. Bush, down about 39% during his term. Obama also outperforms Reagan on jobs, growth and investing. And although August's labor statistics revealed that the country only added 142,000 jobs last month but after six consecutive months of more than 200,000 jobs, even if the numbers stay at the August level America will create more than 2.5 million new jobs in 2014 and almost to million new jobs since President Obama took office on January 20, 2009. The other good news is that jobless claims were just over 300,000; lowest since 2007. This is the best private sector jobs creation performance in American history. President Reagan has long been considered the best modern economic President for Conservative Republicans. So a fair comparison would be the Reagan economy's performance dealing with the oil-induced recession of the 198os with that of President Obama and his performance during this 'Great Recession.' As this unemployment chart shows below, President Obarna's job creation kept unemployment from peaking at as high a level as President Reagan, and promoted people into the workforce faster than President Reagan. President Obama has achieved a 6.1% unemployment rate in his sixth year, fully one year faster than President Reagan did. At this point in his presidency, President Reagan was still struggling with 7.1% unemployment, and he did not reach into the mid-low 6% range for another full year. So, despite todays number, the Obama administration has still done considerably better at job creating and reducing unemployment than did the Reagan administration. And economist forecast unemployment will fall to around 5.4% by summer, 2015. A rate President Reagan was unable to achieve during his two terms. EFTA01154033 Unemployment Rate Under President Reagan and President Obama V,YTWT,VM gwint ann . .)11•06.• Jim Much has been made about the poor results of the labor participation rate, which has shown more stubborn recalcitrance as this rate remains higher even as jobs have grown. The labor participation rate adds in jobless part time workers and those in marginal work situations with those seeking full time work. This is not a bidden" unemployment. It is a measure tracked since 19oo and called 'U6: today by the BLS. As this chart shows below, the difference between reported unemployment and all unemployment - including those on the fringe of the workforce — has remained pretty constant since 1994. Labor participation is affected much less by short-term job creation, and much more by long-term demographic trends. As this chart from the BLS shows, as the Baby Boomers entered the workforce and societal acceptance of women working changed, labor participation grew. Now that 'Boomers are retiring we are seeing the percentage of those seeking employment decline. This has nothing to do with job availability, and everything to do with a highly predictable aging demographic. What's now clear is that the Obama administration policies have outperformed the Reagan administration policies for job creation and unemployment reduction. Even though Reagan had the benefit of a growing Boomer class to ignite economic growth, while Obama has been forced to deal with a retiring workforce developing special needs. During the eight years preceding Obama there was a net reduction in jobs in America. We now are rapidly moving toward higher, sustainable jobs growth." Economic growth, including manufacturing, is driving jobs. When President Obama took office America was gripped in an offshoring boom, started years earlier, pushing jobs to the developing world. Manufacturing was declining in America, and plants were closing across the nation. This week the Institute for Supply Management (ISM) released its manufacturing report, and it surprised nearly everyone. The latest Purchasing Managers Index (PMI) scored 59, two points higher than July and about that much higher than prognosticators expected. This represents 63 straight months of economic expansion, and 25 consecutive months of manufacturing expansion. New orders were up 3.3 points to 66.7, with t5 consecutive months of improvement and reaching the highest level since April, good - five years prior to Obama becoming President. Not surprisingly, this economic growth provided for 14 consecutive months of improvement in the employment index. Meaning that the "grass roots" economy made its turn for the better just as the DJIA was reaching those highs back in 2,213 — demonstrating that index is still the leading indicator for jobs that it has famously always been. As the last 15 months have proven, jobs and economy are improving, and investors are benefiting. lls Nig Wefts Maw mass. • SS/ Comperlon Preen et SLOX4 . 011•11.0 /ACM 8401 The stock market has converted the long-term growth in jobs and GDP into additional gains for investors. Recently the S&P has crested 2,000 - reaching new all-time highs. Gains made by investors earlier in the Obama administration have further grown, helping businesses raise capital and improving the nest eggs of almost all Americans. And laying the foundation for recent, and prolonged job growth. As this chart shows, over the first 67 months of their presidencies there is a clear `winner" from an investor's viewpoint. A dollar invested when Reagan assumed the presidency would have yielded a staggering Igo% return. Such returns were unheard of prior to his leadership. However, it is undeniable that President Obama has surpassed the previous president. Investors have gained a remarkable 220% over the last 5.5 years! This level of investor growth is unprecedented by any administration, and has proven quite beneficial for everyone. In 2009, with pension funds underfunded and most private retirement accounts savaged by the financial meltdown and Wall Street losses, Boomers and Seniors were resigned to never retiring. The nest egg appeared gone, leaving the 'chickens' to keep working. But now that the coffers have been reloaded increasingly people age 55 - 7o are happily discovering they can quit their old jobs and spend time with family, relax, enjoy hobbies or start new at-home businesses from their laptops or tablets. It is due to a skyrocketing stock market that people can now pursue these dreams and reduce the labor participation rates for 'better pastures." EFTA01154034 Where myth meets reality There is another election in just eight weeks. Statistics will be bandied about. Monthly data points will be hotly contested. There will be a lot of rhetoric by candidates on all sides. But, understanding the prevailing trends is critical. Recognizing that first the economy, then the stock market and now jobs are all trending upward is important — even as all 3 measures will have short-term disappointments. There are a lot of reasons voters elect a candidate. Jobs and the economy are just one category of factors. But, for those who place a high priority on jobs, economic performance and the markets the data clearly demonstrates which presidential administration has performed best. And shows a very clear trend one can expect to continue into 2015. Economically, President Obama's administration has outperformed President Reagan's in all commonly watched categories. Simultaneously the current administration has reduced the deficit, which skyrocketed under Reagan. Additionally, Obama has reduced federal employment, which grew under Reagan (especially when including military personnel,) and truly delivered a "smaller government." Additionally, the current administration has kept inflation low, even during extreme international upheaval, failure of foreign economies (Greece) and a dramatic slowdown in the European economy. So why Big Business, Industry and Conservatives not acknowledging that Obama's policies and the economy as a whole is a huge success. No one wants to give Obama credit for anything! The GOP is SO determined to brand him a failure that they would screw over the American public by not acting on anything (even if it was their idea FIRST) until he is out of office! Then they can claim that he "got nothing... right...." Consider this curious piece by Daniel Gross in the Daily Beast: Gross says most of the credit for the stock market should go to the Federal Reserve and to U.S. corporations' ability to tap foreign markets -- but he also acknowledges that Obama was able to "reverse the free fall of late 2008 and early 2009, stop the panic, and create the conditions for growth." Those are pretty significant policy achievements for which the Obama administration receives almost no credit in the public mind. As for the Fed, let's not forget that Obama did appoint Janet Yellen as chairwoman, in part because of the understanding that she would continue the policies of her predecessor, Ben Bernanke. One frequently overlooked point is that, although presidents can't always do much to push the economy or stock market higher, their mistakes can do much more to push both lower. George W. Bush is the gilt-edged example here: His tax cuts, debt-fueled spending on military adventures, and indifference to regulation all helped drive the U.S. economy off the cliff in 2008. He deserves every scrap of blame that can be mustered for the 40% decline in the S&P 500 during his term, and for the years of hangover since. Not to mention the financial markets in free-fall, the housing market crash, the banking system on the verge of bankruptcy and the country losing more than 750,000 jobs a month. Please feel free to see the attached articles: How Come Nobody Talks About Obama's Bull Market -- and -- Obama Out Performs Reagan on Jobs, Growth and Investing. One of the most persistent phenomenon in American history is that Big Business never recognizes when it's getting a break. In 1934, when Franklin Roosevelt watered down the Securities Act that created the Securities and Exchange Commission, progressives were outraged. Wall Street should remember FDR "with gratitude," wrote an infuriated progressive in the New Republic. But he knew that wouldn't happen -- the stock exchange, he predicted, "will turn upon Roosevelt with fury." So it did, even though FDR did more than any other individual to save Wall Street from extinction. And I am sorry that Barrack Obama will suffer this same fate. WS President due to edress nation on prime time television In response to President Obama's last week promising U.S. airstrikes targeting ISISL militants in Iraq and possibly Syria, David Ignatius wrote in his op-ed — Obama's advantages as a reluctant warrior - in The Washington Post: President Obama certainly didn't go looking for another war in the Middle East. Indeed, he contorted himself almost to the breaking point to avoid one. But as he explained to the country Wednesday night, he had no choice but to respond with "strength and resolve"to the barbarous Islamic State that is ravaging Iraq and Syria. Obama's decision to combat the Islamic State offers him a chance to reset U.S. leadership and his own presidency after growing doubt at home and abroad about what, if anything, he was willing to fight for. His innate cautiousness is now actually a reassurance that he'll fight this war sensibly, partnering with allies in the region, in a way that doesn't needlessly exacerbate the United States' problems with the Muslim world. And though Ignatius' op-ed is poignant, I would rather that you look at Fareed Zakaria's op-ed also in The Washington Post - Can we defeat the Islamic State? - because I believe that its message of restraint and caution may be more affective. And for this reason, I have included the entire piece below. Fareed Zakaria: Here we go again. The United States has declared war on another terrorist group. President Obama's speech Wednesday night outlined a tough, measured strategy to confront the Islamic State — which is a threat to the region and beyond. But let's make sure in executing this strategy that we learn something from the 13 years since Sept. 11, 2001, and the war against al-Qaeda. Here are a few lessons to think about. Don't always take the bait. In one of his videotaped speeches to his followers, Osama bin Laden outlined his strategy. All that we have to do is to send two mujahedeen to the furthest point east to raise a piece of cloth on which is written al-Qaeda,"he said, "in order to make (American) generals race there." The purpose of the gruesome execution videos was to provoke the United States. And it worked. After all, nothing has changed about the self-proclaimed Islamic State, and the dangers it poses, in the past month — other than the appearance of these videos. Yet they moved Washington to action. The scholar Fawaz Gerges writes that a few months ago Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi noted that his organization was not ready to attack the United States but "he wished the U.S. would deploy boots on the ground so that IS could directly engage the Americans — and kill them." We have to act against this terror group. But let's do it at a time and manner of our choosing, rather than jumping when it wants us to jump. EFTA01154035 Don't overestimate the enemy. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, is a formidable foe, but the counterforces to it have only just begun. And if these forces — the Iraqi army, the Kurdish pest merga, US. air power — work in a coordinated fashion, it will start losing ground. Also, keep in mind that it does not actually hold as much ground as the many maps flashed on television keep showing. Large parts of those "territories" are vacant desert. The cities in Iraq and Syria are clustered along rivers. While the Islamic State is much more sophisticated than al-Qaeda in its operations and technology, it has one major, inherent weakness. Al-Qaeda was an organization that was pan-Islamic, trying to appeal to all Muslims. This group is a distinctly sectarian organization. It is a successor to al-Qaeda in Iraq, which was set up by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi with an explicitly anti-Shiite mission. In fact, this is why al-Qaeda broke with Zarqawi, imploring him not to make fellow Muslims the enemy. The Islamic State is anti-Shiite as well as deeply hostile to Kurds, Christians and many other inhabitants of the Middle East. This means that it has large numbers of foes in the region who will fight against it, not because the United States wants them to but in their own interests. Remember the politics. Military action must be coupled with smart political strategy. The Islamic State is a direct outgrowth of the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the ruinous political decisions to disband the Iraqi army and Ve-Ltaathily" its bureaucracy. The result was a disempowered, enraged (and armed) Sunni population that started an insurgency. Vice media's recent documentary on the group interviewed some Iraqi Sunnis who said that, for all the chaos, they were happier under the Islamic State than under the Shiite army,"which is how they referred to the Iraqi government. The Obama administration has mapped out a smart strategy in Iraq, pressing the Baghdad government to include more Sunnis. But that has yet to happen — the Shiite parties have dragged their feet over any major concessions to Sunnis. The Iraqi army has not been reconstituted to make it less partisan and sectarian and more inclusive and effective. This is a crucial issue because if the United States is seen as defending two non-Sunni regimes — Iraq and Syria — against a Sunni uprising, it will not win. And it will be hard to recruit local allies. While a minority in Iraq, Sunnis make up the vast majority of the Middle East's Muslims. The Syrian aspect of the president's strategy is its weak link It is impossible to battle the Islamic State and not, in effect, strengthen the Bashar al-Assad regime. We can say we don't intend to do that, but it doesn't change the reality on the ground. The Free Syrian Army remains weak and divided among many local militias. Obama promised to "degrade- the Islamic State. Good. He also promised to 'ultimately destroynit. We have not been able to get rid of al-Qaeda. And destroying a group such as this requires defusing the sectarian dynamics that fuel it. That's not for Washington to do, but it can help make it happen by pressing the Iraqis and enlisting the Saudis and other regional powers. Obama's military intervention in the region will work only if there is an equivalent, perhaps even more intense, political intervention. But I would like to go back to Ignatius' op-ed as its intelligent observations are equally important. Ignatius: Obama's preference for working through allies, derided by critics as "leading from behind," may offer an advantage now. The United States can use its air power to degrade the Islamic State because it has support from allies in the region — Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates and (implicitly) Iran. The United States can avoid major ground combat to the extent that it recruits other boots on the ground, from its regional allies. This Muslim cover is essential if the United States is going to fight the next round of the campaign against jihadists without making the mistakes of the past decade. Another unlikely opportunity for Obama is that the Islamic State provides a common enemy for erstwhile antagonists, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, or Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan. Already, there are little hints of rapprochement: Iran's deputy foreign minister recently visited Saudi Arabia; Ilezbollah's pet newspaper in Beirut just published a rare plaudit for Sunni leader Saad al-Hariri. Obama rightly hopes that a joint fight against the Islamic State may open space for regional dialogue that may gradually bridge the Sunni-Shiite sectarian chasm through which the poison flowed. The shakiest aspect of the policy is the Syria strategy. Obama is pinning his hopes on a moderate opposition that has stumbled badly over the past two years. The United States will bomb the Islamic State's havens in Syria, but can the moderates seize and hold ground as the jihadists retreat? Probably not at first, but they'll do better with U.S. training. This is a fight that's likely to last years, not months. A final advantage for Obama is that he seems to understand the historic moment in which the nightmare of the Islamic State has arisen. The old order in the Middle East is collapsing and the new one hasn't yet emerged. This creates space for religious fanatics who feed on the populist rage of an untethered region. Amid this anarchy, Obama is seeking to prevent the worst outcome, without the false hope that he's creating a shining new democratic order. This is still Iraq, but the illusions of 2003 are gone. aasaaa cyDA approves 'game changing drug la melanoma While blood °efts of our aa en. system atternpt to seta a deadiy metarroma eanety lumos but are Mocked by a proMM that raises up Iran the cancer cell late a shield As someone whose father died from cancer in his early fifties and a mother who survived two bouts of cancer and lived until her late 8os, an article sent to me by a dear friend from the Medical Press publication - FDA approves game changing' drug for melanoma - immediately caught my interest. The article said that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week approved a new immunotherapy drug to treat advanced melanoma, signaling a paradigm shift in the way the deadly skin cancer is treated. The drug, Keytruda (pembrolizumab), was tested on more than 600 patients who had melanoma that had spread throughout their bodies. Because so many of the patients in the early testing showed significant long-lasting responses, the study was continued and the FDA granted the drug "breakthrough therapy" status, allowing it to be fast-tracked for approval. Web Link: EFTA01154036 The largest Phase s study in the history of oncology, the research was conducted at UCLA and is other sites in the US., Europe and Australia. Keytruda, formerly known as MK-3475, is an antibody that targets a protein called PD-s that is expressed by immune cells. The protein puts the immune system's brakes on, keeping its T cells from recognizing and attacking cancer cells, said Dr. Antoni Ribas, the study's principal investigator and a professor of medicine in the division of hematology— oncology at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA. For many years, when using immunotherapy to fight cancer, doctors' strategy has been to bolster the immune system so it could kill the cancer cells. But the approach had limited success because PD-s prevented the immune system from becoming active enough to attack the cancer. Keytruda, in effect, cuts the brake lines, freeing up the immune system to attack the cancer. "This drug is a game changer, a very significant advance in the treatment of melanoma," said Ribas, who also is a researcher at UCLA's Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center. "For patients who have not responded to prior therapies, this drug now provides a very real chance to shrink their tumors and the hope of a lasting response to treatment." 2,PDA approves 'game changing' dmg for melanoma The new drug blocks the protein and breaks down the protective shield Judith Gasson, senior associate dean for research at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and director of the Jonsson Cancer Center, said researchers have long hoped to develop an effective and lasting immunotherapy to fight cancer. "We have long believed that harnessing the power of our own immune systems would dramatically alter cancer treatment," she said. "Based upon work conducted over the past two decades, we are beginning to see the clinical benefits of this research in some of the most challenging cancers." 2,FDA appmvcs 'game changing' dmg for melanoma The 07171W1.1 sysleen is able to resume its attack by roe whale abed cogat shrinking the amours. Generally, about s in so patients responded to previous immunotherapy drugs. Some of those who responded, however, exhibited long-lived benefits, which sustained scientists' interest in the method as an effective mechanism to fight cancer. The response and duration rates for Keytruda were much greater than for previous drugs, Ribas said. In the new study, 72 percent of patients responded to the drug, meaning that their tumors shrank to some degree. Overall, 34 percent of patients showed an objective response, meaning that their tumors shrank by more than 30 percent, and did not re-grow. Ribas said Keytruda has the potential to be used to treat other cancers that the immune system can recognize, including cancers of the lung, bladder, head and neck. And if this is true this new medication is truly a medical breakthrough. ISIS, ISIL Or Islamic State: What's In A Name? A flag of the Islamic State — aka ISIS, aka ISIL — is seen on the other side of a bridge at the front line of fighting between Kurdish Pcsh Merge fighters and Islamist militants in Rushed, Iraq, on Thursday. The group is referred to differently depending on who's talking about it. A flag of Ili. Id•rult Slat — sla ISIS. au ISII. — h soot a Mt tat.s. sit'. ul u bridu .81 On Iris& liar of IILLtittz tvhstwo Kurtlia. rtslt Magi rtetitc• ad Wanda militats fLathatl. froth to Thumb,. Ile Intuit rellarttl itt dilltiguely &prattler out Itos ..drool II Whatever you call the jihadist group known for killing dozens of people at a time, carrying out public executions, beheadings, crucifixions and other brutal acts, there is no denying they have captured the world's attention. The Obama administration favors the term ISIL Many Western news outlets have switched to calling the group "the Islamic State." And in general, ISIS might be the most ubiquitous acronym. All three terms refer to the terrorist group that rose to prominence this summer, taking over parts of Iraq and Syria, declaring a new caliphate and beheading two American journalists. Why is there so much disagreement over what, exactly, to call them? It all started in 2004 when the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi formed an al Qaeda splinter group in Iraq. Within two years, al-Zarqavei's al Qaeda in Iraq was trying to fuel a sectarian war against the majority Shiite community. In June 2006, al-Zarqawi was killed in a U.S. strike. Abu Ayyub al-Masri, his successor, several months later announced the creation of the Islamic State in Iraq (ISI). In April 2ot3, Islamic State in Iraq absorbed the al Qaeda-backed militant group in Syria, Jabhat al-Nusra, also known as the al-Nusra Front. Its leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi said his group will now be known as Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant. Since then, the English- speaking world seems to have had a hard time settling on a name for them. Jonah Blank is a former staffer at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he advised Joe Biden and John Kerry when they were senators. He's now at the RAND Corp. think tank Ile says that the militant organization is waging a propaganda war — and what name it goes by is part of that war. EFTA01154037 Here's a breakdown of the key terms, and the debates that swirl around them: Islamic State This is the term used by the organization itself these days, and it speaks to their ambitions. "They're claiming to represent all Muslims everywhere — they have declared the establishment of a new caliphate," Blank says. "So V they are to actually own this term, that'll be a huge propaganda victory for them." Outside of the group and its supporters, the phrase isn't widely used in the Middle East, Blank says. "My sense is that it's not very widely accepted at all, because to Muslims everywhere, the Islamic State has a real meaning," he says. "It means the caliphate — it means a universal, legitimate, Islamic rule. And very few Muslims anywhere see this group as legitimate." Meanwhile, many Western media outlets have adopted this phrase, or the abbreviation IS — Blank says he's seen its usage increase over the past two months. (While NPR's policy is to initially call the group "the self-declared Islamic State"or some equivalent phrase, use ISIS in later references and, when necessary, explain that ISIL is another widely used acronym.) "I think that for a lot ofjournalists (IS) is just easier. It takes up less space in a headline. It's what the group actually calls itself so it has that benefit," Blank says. Plus, it avoids the complications and confusions of the acronyms ISIS and ISIL ISIS ISIS, for instance, stands for the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria. That's a direct translation of the "Greater Syria" — not the modem nation by that name. "It refers to Syria, Lebanon, parts of the Arabic is "al-Sham." p's full name in Arabic, but 'Syria" in this case means rkey, parts of what are now Jordan," Blank explains. "The S' in Al-Sham, as The New York Times explained in June, "is the classical Arabic term for Damascus and its hinterlands, and over time, it came to denote the area between the Mediterranean and the Euphrates, south of the Taurus Mountains and north of the Arabian desert." It's a bit confusing: the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria-but-not-just-"Syria." ISIL The phrase preferred by the Obania administration translates "al-Sham"as "the Levant,"another name for the same region — one that isn't as misleading as "Syria." "That's partly why I think the president prefers ISIL," Blank says. "It doesn't have the lengthy explanation that I've just gone into." The word "Levant" isn't very common today. DAIISH Finally, a lesser-known acronym to Western readers: DAIISH. It is the straight Arabic shorthand for the group known as: al-Dawla al-Islamiya ti Iraq wa al-Sham, commonly used in the Arab world and among many Arab media outlets and politicians. When people in the Arab world, use the term DAIISH, it's derogatory, according to Columbia's Khalidi. "Those who disagree with them, call them DAIISH," Khalidi said, adding that the jihadists have objected to the name. The Planet Just Had Its Warmest August On Record .As it is September ts, 2014 and it is 102 degrees here in Los Angeles and yesterday it was los degrees, this article in the Buffington Post was of special interest to me: This past August was the warmest since records began in t881, according to new data released by NASA. The latest readings continue a series of record or near- record breaking months. The month of May of this year was also the warmest in recorded history. Dr. Gavin Schmidt, a climatologist and climate modeler at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told The Iluffington Post that while the agency's data does indicate that this August was the hottest on record, the difference falls within a few hundredths of a degree compared with previous Augusts. Schmidt cautioned against focusing on any one month or year, but instead on the fact that "the long-term trends are toward warming."A very hot August, he said, is just one piece of the data that Wing's) towards the long-term trends." EFTA01154038 Change in August surface temperatures from t88o to 2024, in degrees Celsius. The number at the top right-hand corner is an estimate for the global mean change. Source: NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies. It should be understood that the effects of global warming are the environmental and social changes caused (directly or indirectly) by human emissions of greenhouse gases. And there is a worldwide scientific consensus that climate change is occurring, and that human activities are the primary driver. Evidence of climate change includes the instrumental temperature record, rising sea levels, and decreased snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere. According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in human greenhouse gas concentrations. Projections of future climate change suggest further global warming, sea level rise, and an increase in the frequency and severity of some extreme weather events. Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) have agreed to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Scientists project that the average global temperatures are expected to increase by 2°F to 11.5°F by 2100, causing a rise in sea level of 2.3 feet in New York City and 3.5 feet at Galveston, Texas, which would be devastating should there be a massive storm in either city. Some of the Other Effects of Rising Temperatures A 2012 study from the U.S. Forest Service found that without "major adaptation efforts; parts of the U.S. are likely to see "substantial future water shortages." Climate change, especially for the Southwest U.S., can both increase water demand and decrease water supply. Research by British government found that climate change may have contributed to a famine in East Africa that killed between 50,000 and ioo,000 people in 2010 and 2011. At least 24 percent of the cause of a lack of major rains in 2011 can be attributed to man-made greenhouse gases, Met Office modeling showed. • The dramatic and rapid loss of sea ice in recent years has consequences beyond the Arctic. Scientists have found the melting shifts the position of the Jet Stream, bringing cold Arctic air further south and increasing the odds of intense snow storms and extreme spring weather. • The spring 2013 allergy season could be one of the worst ever, thanks to climate change. Experts say that increased precipitation, along with an early spring, late-ending fall and higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide may bring more pollen from plants and increased mold and fungal growth. • High in the Peruvian Andes, parts of the world's largest tropical ice sheet have melted at an unbelievable pace. Scientists found that significant portions of the Quelccaya Ice Cap that took over 1,600 years to form have melted in only 25 years. • Thanks to climate change, low-lying island nations may have to evacuate, and sooner than previously expected. Melting of the Greenland and west Antarctic ice sheets has been underestimated, scientists say, and populations in countries like the Maldives, Kiribati, Tuvalu and others may need to move within a decade. With tides on the Atlantic Coast generally forecast to rise two to four feet by 2100 as a result of global warming, the nation's capital faces increasing odds that a big storm will blow up the Potomac River and raise local waters by at least eight feet. At eight feet, for example, a number of government facilities, roadways, cultural sites and thousands of private houses, as well as the Jefferson, Washington and Lincoln national monuments, Washington Navy Yard, Fort McNair and much of Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling would be inundated, the report says. So would the Maine Avenue waterfront, subsidized apartments along the Anacostia River and national memorials honoring Jefferson, King and Lincoln. Therefore, for those of you who are still denying global warming.... You can no longer call it junk science Because in Glendale, California 13 of the first 20 days have had temperatures above go degrees and four of those days the temperature has been more than too degrees. 4144111• EFTA01154039 FACTS: 5.3 million People living in Scotland or only 8.4"% of the people in the UK, tin 6 people in the UK are English or 83.9% and the population of the UK is 64.1 million ranking the UK 22nd in population just behind France and in front of Italy. Without Scotland it would have dropped on position to 23 in ranking just above Burma. Whereas independent of the UK Scotland would have dropped to 114 or 11$ between Singapore and the United Arab Emirates. It would have little say in world affairs and would never be invited to sit at the table with the big boys. On 19 September, people over all Britain could have awaken in a diminished country, one that was possibly no longer a player on the world stage. If Scotland had voted to leave the United Kingdom, it would have been Britain's greatest ever defeat: as the nation would have voted to abolish itself. What was left behind after a Scottish yes vote would become maybe not a global laughing stock as one journalist wrote but whenever the Prime Minister of what remained of the United Kingdom raised his voice in the international arena, he might have been met by a chorus of 'You couldn't even keep your own country together!' If even the British don't believe in the British way of doing things any more, then why would anybody else? This problem would be particularly acute for David Cameron since the referendum would have been lost on his watch. But it would affect his successors too. One can almost hear Vladimir Putin deriding the idea of taking lectures from a country that couldn't even hold itself together. The worst thing about a yes vote is that Britain would have been lost in a fit of absence of mind. Scotland is not a colony speaking a separate language; the Scottish people are not discriminated against within the Union. Indeed, the last prime minister and chancellor were both Scots. Rather, the momentum for independence is being produced by a general anti-politics mood and a folk dislike of the Conservative party in Scotland. It was a weak basis on which to try to rend asunder the most successful marriage of nations in human history, but it has gained traction because the UK forgot how to talk about itself. Since so much power is wielded in London, the Scotts and others often feel that they are left out of the discussion. Already the Scottish vote has carted a long shadow over Britain's international standing. It looks to the rest of the world as though Britain is having a national identity crisis. One cabinet minister exclaimed after a recent foreign trip, 7 am fed up with going abroad and being lectured about how to keep my country together.' What interests a foreign audience most is our two referendums: the one on whether Scotland stays in the United Kingdom and the subsequent one on whether the UK, or what's left of it, will remain in the European Union. The rest of the world has grasped something that too many people in this country have not: this September's referendum isn't just about Scotland's future but about the rest of Britain's too. If Scotland had voted `yes', Great Britain was on its way to become Little Britain. One Labor frontbencher said that this country would be a 'shitty Singapore'. This might be going too far, but he has a point. Think of almost any foreign policy or national security issue, and Scotland's departure from the UK would affect it. Britain's position in Europe would be weakened, its military forces cut down still further and its nuclear status threatened. But perhaps the most profound effect would be on the nation's psyche. Scotland choosing to leave would be a Suez moment. In this intensely competitive world of big units — China, America, India, Russia — a tiny archipelago called Great Britain possesses the sixth biggest economy on Earth and the ability to exert global influence. But what might have happened if Scotland chose independence on Sept is, forcing Britain to breaks up. Without a doubt, an independent Scotland would have minimal influence in the world and what remained of Britain would inevitably lose its global role. Economic strength is the most important dimension of national power. At present, Scotland is part of a unit that comes sixth in the world GDP league. If it had become independent, Scotland would then be a new entrant at number 42 in the global rankings - below the likes of Nigeria, South Africa, Iran, Thailand and the Philippines. With a GDP of £lso billion ($246 billion at market exchange rates) Scotland would be in the same league of world economic powers as Pakistan, Greece, Egypt and Finland. Instead of being part of a country with enough economic strength to play a global role, an independent Scotland would have no such option. The White Paper on independence issued by Scotland's government employs artful language to describe this inescapable truth. "While the UK seeks art ability to project global power, art independent Scotland can choose a different approach," it reads. One has to admire the use of the world "choose", as if a separate Scotland would be able to weigh up whether to exert global influence and, after due consideration, decide that it would be best not to. Earlier, the White Paper lapses into euphemism. "Scotland's smaller size and specific national interests mean that we can adopt a more focused approach to the design and delivery offoreign and defense policies." The Scottish leader, Alex Salmond suggested that Scotland would be in the Norway-Sweden league of world EFTA01154040 powers. But a glance at the GDP figures exposes how unrealistic this would be. At $500 billion and $56o billion respectively, the economies of Nonvay and Sweden are more than twice the size of Scotland's. And what about the rest of Britain if Scotland breaks away? The departure of Scotland would deprive the remainder of the UK of to per cent of its GDP, but even with this loss, the successor country would still rank sixth in the world economic league. But what about the pound? Alex Salmond has said that independent Scotland would still use the pound but Downing Street and others say no. With crude oil production on the decline, how would an independent Scotland fund some of its ambitious social programs that it feels the government in London is denying them? Yet Scotland's departure would have another profoundly damaging consequence: the British armed services would have to be broken up to allow the creation of a Scottish army, navy and air force. The British armed forces, already grappling with one cut after another, may soon be broken into pieces. The White Paper spells out Scotland's precise demands. The RAF would be asked to hand over one squadron of 12 Typhoon fighters for the new Scottish air force. That may not sound much — until you remember that the RAF only has two squadrons of air defense jets. So the rebirth of an independent Scotland would deprive the RAF of 5o per cent of its strength in air-to•air combat. Scotland would also demand two frigates from the Royal Navy. Again, that may not sound much — until you remember that the Navy only has 13 frigates. Along with six destroyers, that means Britain possesses to big warships. So Scotland would demand to per cent of the core of the surface fleet. An independent Scotland would also ask for three infantry battalions. The regular Army has 36 in total, so that means an 8 per cent reduction. At present, Britain's armed forces are just big enough to count for something in the global balance. Every defense review since the end of the Cold War has been an intense struggle to keep them above that vital threshold. But if Scotland left the Union, the game would be up. Once the Navy loses to per cent of its big warships, the RAF loses half of its air defense squadrons and the Army sacrifices another 8 per cent of its infantry — on top of all the other cuts that are currently being made — then what was left of the British Armed Forces would fade to irrelevance in global terms. Instead of possessing united armed forces which count for something, they will have chosen to divide them into two shrunken militaries that would count for very little. The centuries when Britain's Armed Forces shaped the world would come to an end. Alex Salmond also promised to remove Britain's nuclear deterrent from its base in Scotland. But his position on this crucial issue is fundamentally incoherent. The White Paper on independence condemns Trident on moral grounds as an "affront to basic decency". Fair enough - that is a reasonable point of view. But the same White Paper also promises that Scotland would stay in NATO. That makes no sense at all. Nuclear weapons are the very bedrock of the NATO alliance. In the final analysis, the security of every NATO member is guaranteed by the US nuclear arsenal — which, incidentally, consists in large measure of the same Trident missiles presently deployed by the Royal Navy. If you think that reliance on Trident is immoral, then it cannot be right to stay in a military alliance that, well, relies on Trident. The only change brought by independence would be the removal of Trident missiles from Scotland. Salmond plan was to continue to rest the security of his country on a nuclear deterrent while going to huge trouble and expense to make sure that the weapons were safely out of sight and out of mind. Ills great achievement would be to ensure that the Tridents providing Scotland's nuclear umbrella would be based in America and commanded from Washington, instead of being located in Faslane and commanded from London. Salmond was thereby committed to arguing that the morality of relying on nuclear weapons depends on the location of the missiles in question. If the Tridents are in Scotland, they offend "basic decency"; if they're in America, then no problem. What is left if Britain had broken up into two countries, one of which will rank below Nigeria and South Africa in world GDP and wield little international influence. Meanwhile, the British armed forces would be divided into two militaries, neither of which will count for anything in global terms. As a result, the rest of Britain would have loss much of the global influence it has wielded for centuries. Meanwhile, an independent Scotland will continue to rely on Trident missiles, provided they are safely over the horizon in America. And now that the referendum has been defeated, it is imperative that the UK learn how to foster a stronger sense of national identity again. If they do not, this plebiscite will not be the end of the matter but the beginning. Both Scotland and the rest of the UK dodged a bullet and they should allow this referendum be a wakeup call and address the grievances with vigor. The Economics of Scotland's Choice EFTA01154041 The supporters of Scottish independence in Thursday's referendum argue that breaking away from Britain will give Scotland the "powers it needs to build a more prosperous country and a fairer society." Indeed, separation front Britain would allow the Scottish government, which is generally more liberal on economic and public policies, to set its own course for a society closer to that of a Scandinavian country. But Scotland will face significant economic risks if it leaves Britain, which it has been a part of for more than 300 years. This will be particularly true if it keeps using the pound as its currency. Scotland's economy relies heavily on financial services and oil production, and it is in much better shape than the economies of other European nations. Its unemployment rate, for instance, was 6.4 percent in the second quarter, substantially lower than the unemployment rate of 11.5 percent in the 18-country eurozone. But independence could make Scotland vulnerable to new problems that cannot be easily dismissed. Scottish independence leaders say the country will continue using the British pound, even after independence. That would be a terrible idea. The euro crisis provides a vivid example of the dangers of a currency union that is not accompanied by a political union. The recessions suffered by countries like Greece, Ireland and Spain were particularly devastating because those countries did not have their own independent central banks that could lower interest rates, devalue their currencies, buy government bonds or provide loans to weakened banks when their economies went into recession. Worse, they were forced to enact counterproductive austerity policies by officials from the European Union, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund, as a condition for loans to help them get through the financial crisis. The same scenario would be possible in a politically independent Scotland. If the jobless rate rose in Scotland but remained stable or low in the rest of Britain — England, Wales and Northern Ireland — the Bank of England would be unlikely to cut interest rates solely to help the Scots. (For much of the last 20 years, the jobless rate has been higher in Scotland than in Britain as a whole.) There's also no certainty that the London-based central bank, which would no longer feel accountable to Scottish voters, would do everything in its power to save a failing Scottish bank. Two of Scotland's biggest banks, the Royal Bank of Scotland and noyds Banking Group, which received financial lifelines from the British government during the crisis, said on Thursday that they would relocate to England to be assured that they would be able to borrow from the Bank of England. An independent Scotland would also be more vulnerable to declines in oil and gas production in the North Sea. Nationalists point out that more than oo percent of tax revenue from that production would come from fields in Scottish waters. While that is a lot, production in the North Sea has been falling steadily since 1999, according to the Office for Budget Responsibility•, a British government agency. In the 2013-14 fiscal year, oil and gas production generated £4.7 billion ($7.6 billion) in tax revenue for Britain, down from £6.1 billion in the year before. Nationalist leaders who are campaigning for a yes vote in this week's referendum have promised to bolster the Scottish economy by increasing spending on early education programs, transportation, renewable energy and other things they say politicians in London have ignored. But Scotland could arguably do all of them while remaining part of Britain. In fact, leaders of the major political parties in the British Parliament have pledged to give Scotland more autonomy over taxes and spending policy if a majority of Scots vote no. The appeal of independence, of course, cannot simply be measured in pecuniary terms. Each voter will have to resolve the conflict between national identity and economic reality for themselves. The New York Times Editorial Board: SEPT. 13, 2014 By Also please feel free to read the attached article by Sean O'Grady - Scottish independence: What would have happened (f Scotland voted Yes? I've got a rough idea. THIS WEEK's QUOTES "Is this the best capitalism can do? Greed is sinful, disgraceful, disgusting. Greed should be called out for what it is and then confronted." paulwhiteleysr TED Talks OF THE WEEK EFTA01154042 Hans Rosling and Ola Rosling: How not to be ignorant about the world Web Link: bliwilynulltheiSmALLUX - How much do you know about the world? Researcher thins Rosling, with his famous charts of global population, health and income data (and an extra-extra-long pointer), demonstrates that you have a high statistical chance of being quite wrong about what you think you know. Play along with his audience quiz — then, from Hans' son Ola, learn 4 ways to quickly get less ignorant. The good news is that I scored perfect and I ant happy that there were no more questions because I am sure that my bias will click in too.... Let me know how you fared. Hans Rosling: New insights on poverty Web link: http://www.ted.cornitalks/hans reeding reveals new insights on pcivenyiSpiong Impressed by the above TED Talk by Hans Rosling, I decided to look at his TED Talk in 2007 on how countries are pulling themselves out of poverty. He demos Dollar Street, comparing households of varying income levels worldwide. Then he does something really amazing. So if you are bored by his style and information please feel free to enjoy the TED Talk by Hans Rosling: New insights on poverty. Hans Rosling is a professor of global health at Sweden's Karolinska Institute. His current work focuses on dispelling common myths about the so-called developing world, which (he points out) is no longer worlds away from the West. In fact, most of the Third World is on the same trajectory toward health and prosperity, and many countries are moving twice as fast as the west did. What sets Rosling apart isn't just his apt observations of broad social and economic trends, but the stunning way he presents them. Guaranteed: You've never seen data presented like this. By any logic, a presentation that tracks global health and poverty trends should be, in a word: boring. But in Rosling's hands, data sings. Trends come to life. And the big picture — usually hazy at best — snaps into sharp focus. Rosling's presentations are grounded in solid statistics (often drawn from United Nations data), illustrated by the visualization software he developed. The animations transform development statistics into moving bubbles and flowing curves that make global trends dear, intuitive and even playful. During his legendary presentations, Rosling takes this one step farther, narrating the animations with a sportscaster's flair. Rosling developed the breakthrough software behind his visualizations through his nonprofit Gapminder, founded with his son and daughter-in-law. The free software — which can be loaded with any data — was purchased by Google in March 2007. (Rosling met the Google founders at TED.) Rosling began his wide-ranging career as a physician, spending many years in rural Africa tracking a rare paralytic disease (which he named konzo) and discovering its cause: hunger and badly processed cassava. He co-founded Medecins sans Frontiers (Doctors without Borders) Sweden, wrote a textbook on global health, and as a professor at the Karolinska Institut in Stockholm initiated key international research collaborations. lie's also personally argued with many heads of state, including Fidel Castro. GREAT MAGIC TRICKS Darcy Oake's jaw-dropping dove illusions I Britain's Got Talent 2014 Web Link: knaLtkaimaidsO-K.,,alluo Illusionist Christian Farla wows the crowd I Britain's Got Talent 2014 Web link: blip. /trot,. hin./fFkiTterriey EFTA01154043 THIS WEEK's MUSIC 12 Wilson Pickett (March 18, 1941 — January 19, 20o6) was an American R&B, soul and rock and roll singer and songwriter. A major figure in the development of American soul music, Pickett recorded over 5o songs which hit the US R&B charts with 18 Top Ten Hits that frequently crossed over to the US Billboard Hot too, leaving a catalog of classics. Among his best known hits are In the Midnight flour" (which he co-wrote), "Land of L.000 Dances", "Mustang Sally", and "Flinky Broadway". The impact of Pickett s songwriting and recording led to his toot induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Pickett was a popular composer writing songs that were recorded by many artists including Led Zeppelin, Van Haien, the Rolling Stones, Aerosmith, the Grateful Dead, Booker T. & the MGs, Genesis, Creedence Clearwater Revival, Hootie & the Blowfish, Echo & the Bunnymen, Rosy Music, Bruce Springsteen, Los Lobos, The Jam and Ani DiFranco, among others. In 1993, he was honored with a Pioneer Award by the Rhythm and Blues Foundation. With this said, I invite everyone to enjoy the music of one of the baddest R&B performers ever.... Mr. Midnight Hour himself.... The Wicket Wilson Picket Wilson Pickett - Land of moo Dances -- lifirtaivotitu hefollattoRk2We Wilson Pickett - In The Midnight flour -- butd(voiambeiskrv1JJ63nU Wilson Pickett - Everybody needs someone to Love - buirilynittn neggyrovutrmat Wilson Pickett - Mustang Sally -- Wiwi/mum hetkfigigagaig Wilson Pickett - Funky Broadway -- Innximmtu.bemerwx.m.GOvq Wilson Pickett - In Love -- bruklavourmbethafranoWSL Wilson Pickett - Engine Number 9 — blIgdivnunthe/UPoTlif26118 Wilson Pickett - Ninety Nine and a HO( -- hlladivtilly henVH2IIViraloY Wilson Pickett - Bring It On Home To Me - htm:// &3Qyyzool Wilson Pickett - 634-57139 - butcavoutv beilfx2apomISKQ Tom Jones & Wilson Pickett - Barqfootin' http:/(youtu.be/6SIQ t2vfaE James Brown & Wilson Pickett Together -- 'grog/youth heizeKKumniVtilk Wilson Pickett & Bruce Springsteen Perform - In the Midnight Hour -- Impiflyoutu.belLtwokylmrio I hope that you have enjoyed this week's offerings and wish you and yours a great week Sincerely, Greg Brown Ortvry lInnrs lionnan OD Olaurnt Moue LW US Fat SA EFTA01154044