Quantcast
Channel: Pax on both houses
Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live

This Should Be SOP For Americans Who Renounce Citizenship To Avoid Taxes

$
0
0
"Bitcoin Jesus" Renounced His American Citizenship - So Now The US Isn't Letting Him In

Roger Ver, a high-profile member of the Bitcoin community who is commonly known as "Bitcoin Jesus," has been denied a US visa — despite having been born in the country.
Ver is well known in the Bitcoin community as an entrepreneur and angel investor, having funded products including Blockchain, Ripple, and Blockpay. He became known as "Bitcoin Jesus" after giving thousands of coins of the virtual currency away for free. Ver was born in the US, making him a citizen there, but he renounced his citizenship in March — and now he says the government isn't letting him back in.
As Coindesk is reporting, Ver posted on Twitter that the US government had refused his recent request for a non-immigrant visa, leaving him "effectively locked out of his native USA." 
Ver complains that the decision has forced him to miss speaking appointments at conferences and that the US embassy in Barbados refused to even consider the evidence for his application.
The official reasoning behind Ver's rejection is that he doesn't have sufficient "ties" to his country of residency in the Caribbean and has not demonstrated he has "the ties that will compel [him] to return to your home country after your travel to the United States," according to a picture he tweeted of a letter that appears to be from the embassy.
Roger Ver Bitcoin Jesus Conference
Roger "Bitcoin Jesus" Ver
In short, US officials are worried that Ver might choose to stay in his native country illegally. 
Ver can't appeal the decision, but he is able to apply all over again, according to Coindesk. He has an American criminal record that could count against him, however — he has previously been jailed for 10 months for selling illegal firecrackers to farmers.
The fiercely libertarian entrepreneur has also appealed for others to follow his lead on citizenship, in June launching a website that helps wealthy people pay their way to citizenship on his new island home of the Federation of St. Kitts and Nevis in the West Indies.
He surrendered his American citizenship a month after moving to the islands, in February 2014.
In an interview in 2013, Ver said discovering Bitcoin landed him in hospital after he "stayed up nights reading about the currency," and the lack of sleep "made him sick."



U.S Losing Its Lead In Medical Research Due To Lack Of Funding

$
0
0

Alan: For a decade, friends at the Duke-UNC medical nexus have spoken of "a lost generation" in scientific research and the perceived need by many American researchers to relocate in Europe if only to have continuity of funding.

Time Magazine

The United States may no longer be the leader in medical research due to lack of funding

Funding for medical research in the United States is in a sorry state, but other parts of the world are experiencing the opposite, according to a new study published Tuesday in the journal JAMA.
Research funding from the United States dropped from 57% of the global pool in 2004 to 50% in 2012. Asia on the other hand tripled its investment in research over the same period, from $2.6 billion in 2004 to $9.7 billion 2012. America also experienced a drop in its share of life science patients, with its share of highly value patents filed by American inventors dropping from 73% to 59% from 1981 and 2011.Limited funding is one of the reasons there was no Ebola vaccine approved when the current outbreak got so badand it’s why already hard-to-fund research for infectious diseases and addiction don’t often make it to clinical trials. For decades the U.S. was responsible for over half of the world’s total funding for medical research. But looking at funding for U.S. and international research from 1994 to 2012, the study authors found current trends are telling a different story.
Overall, research funding in the United States has dropped 0.8% every year from 2004 to 2012.
The data shows that globally, most countries are cutting back. But the United States used to have a unique edge when it comes to science innovation and funding.
The researchers argue that the United States needs to start looking for other ways to fund research, whether it be through taxes, tax breaks or the adoption of bonds for biomedical research, in a similar way to how bonds have helped build environmentally sustainable infrastructure. In a corresponding editorial, Dr. Victor J. Dzau, the president of the Institute of Medicine, and Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg, the presidential chair of University of California, San Francisco, say researchers themselves need to be part of the solution too. They write: “It is the responsibility of the research community to ensure that money for research will be used effectively and efficiently. A first step is to reduce redundancy and duplication of research through better grant selection and coordination.”
Ultimately, if the United States wants to maintain its standing as a leader in medical innovation, it needs to start considering non-traditional approaches to research funding, the authors say. They add that even public support has dropped for biomedical research, being replaced with concerns like domestic security, immigration and the economy, possibly due in part to the fact that in the public eye, there haven’t been many breakthroughs in areas like cancer and Alzheimer’s disease.
“Given global trends, the United States will relinquish its historical innovation lead in the next decade unless such measures are undertaken,” the authors conclude.

"Answering For America's Madness," How Foreigners See Us

$
0
0



Answering for America’s Madness

Posted on January 12, 2015 by 
Yves here. This post by Ann Jones discusses the difficulty that Americans have in answering questions from foreigners about large swathes of our policies. I had enough trouble explaining (mind you, not defending) the Iraq War when I lived in Sydney from 2002 to 2004, when Americans were generally still well tolerated around the world. I can’t imagine what it is like now.
Some readers will no doubt beg to differ, but it appears that our supposed leaders are operating out of a mass delusion and trying (and for the moment succeeding) in imposing it on the rest of us. I wrote this about Obama’s approach to the financial services industry in 2010, but it has much broader application:
Obama’s repudiation of his campaign promise of change, by turning his back on meaningful reform of the financial services industry, in turn locked his Administration into a course of action. The new administration would have no choice other that working fist in glove with the banksters, supporting and amplifying their own, well established, propaganda efforts.
Thus Obama’s incentives are to come up with “solutions” that paper over problems, avoid meaningful conflict with the industry, minimize complaints, and restore the old practice of using leverage and investment gains to cover up stagnation in worker incomes. Potemkin reforms dovetail with the financial service industry’s goal of forestalling any measures that would interfere with its looting. So the only problem with this picture was how to fool the now-impoverished public into thinking a program of Mussolini-style corporatism represented progress.
In other words, on the domestic front, the powers that be genuinely seems to believe that all that matters is if they can control the “narrative,” as in the poll numbers, and the public at large simply won’t notice or care much about the cancerous growth of the surveillance state, the ongoing Executive Branch land grab, the continued overscale subsidies to banks, the healthcare industry and the military apparatus while ordinary citizens are told the government can’t afford Medicare, Social Security, and other social safety nets. In other words, any domestic problem can be solved by better PR. Yet the stunts of late, the latest being the Sony hack and the stunning Administration campaign to turn a breach at a terribly-protected foreign company into a US security threat event, are so ludicrous as to make one wonder whether this is a sign of desperation or simply a new register of cavalierness in dealing with the chump public.
On the foreign front, the belief seems to be that America can force any country to bend to its will, and if they defy America, the US can either implement a regime change (the virtually announced goal for Russia) or turn its opponent into a failed state, perhaps pour décourager les autres. And when we fail, as in Syria, there appears no ability to recognize a defeat. Perhaps the rationalization is that we simply have not succeeded yet.
The sad irony is that the domestic-only version of this campaign could easily succeed for a very long time. But imperial overreach is quite another game, and the US exerts far less control abroad than it seems to believe it has.
By Ann Jones, a TomDispatch regular, and author of Kabul in Winter: Life Without Peace in Afghanistan, among other books, and most recently They Were Soldiers: How the Wounded Return From America’s Wars — The Untold Story, a Dispatch Books project. Originally published at Tomgram
Americans who live abroad — more than six million of us worldwide (not counting those who work for the U.S. government) — often face hard questions about our country from people we live among. Europeans, Asians, and Africans ask us to explain everything that baffles them about the increasingly odd and troubling conduct of the United States.  Polite people, normally reluctant to risk offending a guest, complain that America’s trigger-happiness, cutthroat free-marketeering, and “exceptionality” have gone on for too long to be considered just an adolescent phase. Which means that we Americans abroad are regularly asked to account for the behavior of our rebranded “homeland,” now conspicuously in decline and increasingly out of step with the rest of the world.
In my long nomadic life, I’ve had the good fortune to live, work, or travel in all but a handful of countries on this planet.  I’ve been to both poles and a great many places in between, and nosy as I am, I’ve talked with people all along the way. I still remember a time when to be an American was to be envied. The country where I grew up after World War II seemed to be respected and admired around the world for way too many reasons to go into here.
That’s changed, of course. Even after the invasion of Iraq in 2003, I still met people — in the Middle East, no less — willing to withhold judgment on the U.S.  Many thought that the Supreme Court’s installation of George W. Bush as president was a blunder American voters would correct in the election of 2004. His return to office truly spelled the end of America as the world had known it.  Bush had started a war, opposed by the entire world, because he wanted to and he could. A majority of Americans supported him.  And that was when all the uncomfortable questions really began.
In the early fall of 2014, I traveled from my home in Oslo, Norway, through much of Eastern and Central Europe. Everywhere I went in those two months, moments after locals realized I was an American the questions started and, polite as they usually were, most of them had a single underlying theme: Have Americans gone over the edge? Are you crazy? Please explain.
Then recently, I traveled back to the “homeland.”  It struck me there that most Americans have no idea just how strange we now seem to much of the world. In my experience, foreign observers are far better informed about us than the average American is about them. This is partly because the “news” in the American media is so parochial and so limited in its views both of how we act and how other countries think — even countries with which we were recently, are currently, or threaten soon to be at war. America’s belligerence alone, not to mention its financial acrobatics, compels the rest of the world to keep close track of us.  Who knows, after all, what conflict the Americans may drag you into next, as target or reluctant ally?
So wherever we expatriates settle on the planet, we find someone who wants to talk about the latest American events, large and small: another country bombed in the name of our “national security,” another peaceful protest march attacked by our increasingly militarized police, another diatribe against “big government” by yet another wannabe candidate who hopes to head that very government in Washington.  Such news leaves foreign audiences puzzled and full of trepidation.
Question Time
Take the questions stumping Europeans in the Obama years (which 1.6 million Americans residing in Europe regularly find thrown our way).  At the absolute top of the list: “Why would anyone oppose national health care?” European and other industrialized countries have had some form of national health care since the 1930s or 1940s, Germany since 1880.  Some versions, as in France and Great Britain, have devolved into two-tier public and private systems.  Yet even the privileged who pay for a faster track would not begrudge their fellow citizens government-funded comprehensive health care. That so many Americans do strikes Europeans as baffling, if not frankly brutal. 
In the Scandinavian countries, long considered to be the most socially advanced in the world, a national (physical and mental) health program, funded by the state, is a big part — but only a part — of a more general social welfare system.  In Norway, where I live, all citizens also have an equal right to education (state subsidizedpreschool from age one, and free schools from age six through specialty training or university education and beyond), unemployment benefits, job-placement and paid retraining services, paid parental leave, old age pensions, and more.  These benefits are not merely an emergency “safety net”; that is, charitable payments grudgingly bestowed upon the needy.  They are universal: equally available to all citizens as human rights encouraging social harmony — or as our own U.S. constitution would put it, “domestic tranquility.”  It’s no wonder that, for many years, international evaluators have ranked Norway as the best place to grow old, to be a woman, and to raise a child. The title of “best” or “happiest” place to live on Earth comes down to a neighborly contest among Norway and the other Nordic social democracies, Sweden, Denmark, Finland, and Iceland.
In Norway, all benefits are paid for mainly by high taxation. Compared to the mind-numbing enigma of the U.S. tax code, Norway’s is remarkably straightforward, taxing income from labor and pensions progressively, so that those with higher incomes pay more. The tax department does the calculations, sends an annual bill, and taxpayers, though free to dispute the sum, willingly pay up, knowing what they and their children get in return. And because government policies effectively redistribute wealth and tend to narrow the country’s slim income gap, most Norwegians sail pretty comfortably in the same boat. (Think about that!)
Life and Liberty
This system didn’t just happen. It was planned. Sweden led the way in the 1930s, and all five Nordic countries pitched in during the postwar period to develop their own variations of what came to be called the Nordic Model: a balance of regulated capitalism, universal social welfare, political democracy, and the highest levels of gender and economic equality on the planet. It’s their system. They invented it. They like it. Despite the efforts of an occasional conservative government to muck it up, they maintain it. Why?
In all the Nordic countries, there is broad general agreement across the political spectrum that only when people’s basic needs are met — when they can cease to worry about their jobs, their incomes, their housing, their transportation, their health care, their kids’ education, and their aging parents — only then can they be free to do as they like. While the U.S. settles for the fantasy that, from birth, every kid has an equal shot at the American dream, Nordic social welfare systems lay the foundations for a more authentic equality and individualism.
These ideas are not novel. They are implied in the preamble to our own Constitution. You know, the part about “we the People” forming  “a more perfect Union” to “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”  Even as he prepared the nation for war, President Franklin D. Roosevelt memorably specified components of what that general welfare should be in his State of the Union address in 1941. Among the “simple basic things that must never be lost sight of,” he listed “equality of opportunity for youth and others, jobs for those who can work, security for those who need it, the ending of special privileges for the few, the preservation of civil liberties for all,” and oh yes, higher taxes to pay for those things and for the cost of defensive armaments.
Knowing that Americans used to support such ideas, a Norwegian today is appalled to learn that a CEO of a major American corporation makes between 300 and 400 times as much as its average employee. Or that governors Sam Brownback of Kansas and Chris Christie of New Jersey, having run up their state’s debts by cutting taxes for the rich, now plan to cover the loss with money snatched from the pension funds of workers in the public sector. To a Norwegian, the job of government is to distribute the country’s good fortune reasonably equally, not send it zooming upward, as in America today, to a sticky-fingered one percent.
In their planning, Norwegians tend to do things slowly, always thinking of the long term, envisioning what a better life might be for their children, their posterity.  That’s why a Norwegian, or any northern European, is aghast to learn that two-thirds of American college students finish their education in the red, some owing $100,000 or more. Or that in the U.S., still the world’s richest country, one in three children lives in poverty, along with one in fiveyoung people between the ages of 18 and 34. Or that America’s recent multi-trillion-dollar wars were fought on a credit card to be paid off by our kids. Which brings us back to that word: brutal.
Implications of brutality, or of a kind of uncivilized inhumanity, seem to lurk in so many other questions foreign observers ask about America like: How could you set up that concentration camp in Cuba, and why can’t you shut it down?  Or: How can you pretend to be a Christian country and still carry out the death penalty? The follow-up to which often is: How could you pick as president a man proud of executing his fellow citizens at the fastest raterecorded in Texas history?  (Europeans will not soon forget George W. Bush.)
Other things I’ve had to answer for include:
* Why can’t you Americans stop interfering with women’s health care?
* Why can’t you understand science?
* How can you still be so blind to the reality of climate change?
* How can you speak of the rule of law when your presidents break international laws to make war whenever they want?
* How can you hand over the power to blow up the planet to one lone, ordinary man?
* How can you throw away the Geneva Conventions and your principles to advocate torture?
* Why do you Americans like guns so much?  Why do you kill each other at such a rate?
To many, the most baffling and important question of all is: Why do you send your military all over the world to stir up more and more trouble for all of us?
That last question is particularly pressing because countries historically friendly to the United States, from Australia to Finland, are struggling to keep up with an influx of refugees from America’s wars and interventions. Throughout Western Europe and Scandinavia, right-wing parties that have scarcely or never played a role in government are now rising rapidly on a wave of opposition to long-established immigration policies. Only last month, such a party almost toppled the sitting social democratic government of Sweden, a generous country that has absorbed more than its fair share of asylum seekers fleeing the shock waves of “the finest fighting force that the world has ever known.”
The Way We Are
Europeans understand, as it seems Americans do not, the intimate connection between a country’s domestic and foreign policies. They often trace America’s reckless conduct abroad to its refusal to put its own house in order.  They’ve watched the United States unravel its flimsy safety net, fail to replace its decaying infrastructure, disempower most of its organized labor, diminish its schools, bring its national legislature to a standstill, and create the greatest degree of economic and social inequality in almost a century. They understand why Americans, who have ever less personal security and next to no social welfare system, are becoming more anxious and fearful. They understand as well why so many Americans have lost trust in a government that has done so little new for them over the past three decades or more, except for Obama’s endlessly embattled health care effort, which seems to most Europeans a pathetically modest proposal.
What baffles so many of them, though, is how ordinary Americans in startling numbers have been persuaded to dislike “big government” and yet support its new representatives, bought and paid for by the rich. How to explain that? In Norway’s capital, where a statue of a contemplative President Roosevelt overlooks the harbor, many America-watchers think he may have been the last U.S. president who understood and could explain to the citizenry what government might do for all of them. Struggling Americans, having forgotten all that, take aim at unknown enemies far away — or on the far side of their own towns. 
It’s hard to know why we are the way we are, and — believe me — even harder to explain it to others. Crazy may be too strong a word, too broad and vague to pin down the problem. Some people who question me say that the U.S. is “paranoid,” “backward,” “behind the times,” “vain,” “greedy,” “self-absorbed,” or simply “dumb.”  Others, more charitably, imply that Americans are merely “ill-informed,” “misguided,” “misled,” or “asleep,” and could still recover sanity.  But wherever I travel, the questions follow, suggesting that the United States, if not exactly crazy, is decidedly a danger to itself and others. It’s past time to wake up, America, and look around.  There’s another world out here, an old and friendly one across the ocean, and it’s full of good ideas, tried and true.

Democrats Take A Sharp Left On The Economy

$
0
0
1. Top story: Democrats lay out economic agenda
The proposal from senior lawmakers isn't likely to go anywhere for now, but it establishes Democrats' position for the upcoming campaign. "The centerpiece of the proposal, set to be unveiled Monday by Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), is a 'paycheck bonus credit' that would shave $2,000 a year off the tax bills of couples earning less than $200,000. Other provisions would nearly triple the tax credit for child care and reward people who save at least $500 a year. The windfall — about $1.2 trillion over a decade — would come directly from the pockets of Wall Street 'high rollers' through a new fee on financial transactions, and from the top 1 percent of earners, who would lose billions of dollars in lucrative tax breaks." Lori Montgomery and Paul Kane in The Washington Post.
Meanwhile, the Wall Street money has dried up for the Democratic Party. "Of course, the flight of financial sector money is not the sole reason for the increasingly populist arguments from Democratic politicians. But it has helped the debate to move, ever so slightly, away from Wall Street support. In the last two elections, according to data from the Center for Responsive Politics, Democratic Party committees and candidates saw their share of contributions from finance, insurance and real estate donors shrink to the lowest percentages since at least 1990."Paul Blumenthal in The Huffington Post.
Number of the day: 1.7 percent. That's the increase in hourly wages for the average American worker last year -- which is almost nothing, but is still better than inflation, thanks to falling oil prices. Matt O'Brien in The Washington Post

Chevy Bolt Electric Car Could Be "First Mass-Market EV Success"

$
0
0

The auto industry is showing off its sleek new designs at the 2015 North American International Auto Show in Detroit.



Chevy Bolt to get 200 miles on a single charge, 'breaks the barrier on range anxiety,' GM executive says Chevy Bolt to sell in low $30,000s, after government incentives, and travel up to 200 miles on battery charge. Chevy Bolt could transform the prospects for widespread adoption of electric cars
For years automakers have failed to make an electric car with the two qualities most drivers demand: a long driving range and a low sticker price.
Tesla Motors addressed half of the equation with its Model S, a sport sedan that travels 265 miles on a charge — but costs about $80,000. Other automakers tackled the other half, with electrics that are economical but go only about 80 miles between lengthy charging sessions.
Now General Motors, in a dramatic model debut in Detroit, says it has unlocked the magic formula. Its Chevrolet Bolt concept car will travel 200 miles between charges and sell in the low $30,000 range, after government incentives, GM executives said. The spacious four-door hatchback will go on sale in 2017.
If the automaker can deliver, the Bolt could transform the prospects for widespread adoption of electric cars. The Bolt could be "the first mass-market EV success," said one industry veteran.


"A 200-mile EV range at about $30,000 in a crossover body shape is a killer combination," said John Krafcik, president of auto shopping company TrueCar Inc. and former chief executive of Hyundai Motor America. "You are looking at annual sales of 100,000 vehicles."
The Bolt's range more than doubles that of Nissan's Leaf, the bestselling battery electric car, along with similar offerings from most major automakers. The car could help quell widespread skepticism about the future of electric cars, especially during a time of plummeting gas prices.
Tesla has promised a model with a Bolt-like price and range for years. But the automaker's next offering will be the repeatedly delayed Model X sport utility vehicle, now expected to launch late this year, for about the same price as the Model S. The affordable Model 3 is still years away.
Tesla said it welcomed the Bolt concept, which debuted Monday at the North American International Auto Show.





"Tesla is always supportive of other manufacturers who bring compelling electric vehicles to market," the automaker said in a statement. "We applaud Chevrolet for introducing the Bolt and are excited to learn more about the product."
The Bolt, which GM kept secret until the Detroit show, made its debut alongside a redesigned 2016 Volt, the second generation of Chevrolet's pioneering plug-in hybrid, first introduced in 2010. The new Volt will have an electric-only range of 50 miles before a gasoline engine takes over.
The original Volt was criticized for a high price and spotty execution. But GM's early start on electric development — the company also produced the low-selling subcompact Spark EV — may now pay off in lower production costs.





Improvements in battery technology, electric motors and the use of lightweight materials have helped slice nearly $10,000 off of the cost of manufacturing the Volt, said Mark Reuss, GM's executive vice president for global product development.
Those advancements will now be applied to its all-electric sibling, producing a battery-powered vehicle that won't leave owners constantly worried about running out of juice.
"The Bolt breaks the barrier on range anxiety," Reuss said.
It could also break the barrier of customer skepticism, said Akshay Anand, a senior analyst at Kelly Blue Book.
"Traditional electric-only vehicles have ranges well under 100 miles," Anand said. "Getting to the 200-mile mark is when you start to see potentially a much wider base of mainstream consumers who aren't just making short commutes, and don't just want to be 'green.'"
Some remain unconvinced that battery-powered cars can break through as a mainstream technology, especially in the short term.





"You have to wonder what the market will be for super-efficient vehicles at a time when oil is around $50 a barrel," said Jeremy Anwyl, an auto industry consultant.
Even Toyota, the global leader in gas-electric hybrids, doesn't see much future in cars powered by batteries alone. Toyota is moving instead into fuel cell cars, which rely on hydrogen to power their electric motors.
GM remains committed to battery power, despite the challenges it has faced. Chevrolet had hoped the original Volt would break through as a mainstream vehicle.
But the first Volt was a pricey and compromised car, said Jake Fisher, director of auto testing at Consumer Reports. The original Volt started at $41,000 for a base model, before incentives of up to $7,500 from the federal government and $2,500 from California.
"It was a really expensive vehicle that didn't feel expensive," he said. "Inside, it was basically a Chevy Cruze. And in the end, even the efficiency wasn't all that great."





The original Volt could travel 35 miles on battery power. But after the battery ran out, it achieved only 37 mpg operating as a hybrid. (The 2016 Volt will get 41 mpg in hybrid mode.) The current Prius, by comparison, achieves 51 mpg in city driving and offers more comfort and refinement at a substantially lower starting price.
Another big drawback: The Volt offered only four seats, because of space issues created by the large battery.
GM initially targeted 40,000 Volt sales annually, but purchases topped out at about 23,000 in 2012 and 2013 — and only after GM dangled heavy discounts and special lease deals. Sales fell to about 19,000 Volts in 2014.
The Volt succeeded by other measures, however. It has run a neck-and-neck race with the Nissan Leaf for the title of best-selling plug-in car. More important, it has created a loyal group of Volt owners eager to see the company's next-generation electric models.
In designing the 2016 Volt, Chevrolet systematically addressed consumer complaints about the original, said Andrew Farah, the lead engineer on both projects. Volt owners' highest priority, he said, was a longer electric-only driving range, followed by better hybrid mileage.
Chevrolet did not release pricing on the new Volt, but it isn't likely to increase much, if at all, from the current model, which starts at about $34,000 before government incentives. Farah said his team focused on giving customers a better car for the money.
"The improvement in range is significant, and miles per gallon is significant, but what really matters is how it feels driving down the road," he said. "That's where you hook people."
The debuts of the Bolt and redesigned Volt affirm the automaker's long-term commitment to electric vehicles, Reuss said.
"There are a lot of people who don't make snap decisions based on the current price of gas," Reuss said. "These are people who care about what they are doing to help the environment for the next generation."
brian.thevenot@latimes.com
Hirsch reported from Detroit and Thevenot from Los Angeles.
Times staff writers David Undercoffler and Charles Fleming contributed to this report.

The Town Without Wi-Fi. (Here Come The Technophobes!)

$
0
0

THE TOWN WITHOUT WI-FI

The residents of Green Bank, West Virginia, can’t use cell phones, wi-fi, or other kinds of modern technology due to a high-tech government telescope. Recently, this ban has made the town a magnet for technophobes, and the locals aren’t thrilled to have them.
Story by Michael J. Gaynor | Photographs by Joshua Cogan
Monique Grimes had just moved to Florida for a new job when the syndrome started.
Tom, a Green Bank native, and Monique Grimes, who is electrosensitive.
On the third morning in her St. Petersburg apartment, she woke with a harsh thumping in her chest: heart palpitations.
Within hours, it felt as if someone had tied a thick rubber band around her head. Then came nausea, fatigue, ringing in her left ear—an onslaught of maladies, all at once, and she had no idea why. “I was trying to come up with every excuse in the world for what was happening to me,” she says. “Moving is stressful, but the symptoms just kept piling on.”
In 2012, after a decade as the owner of a Connecticut catering company and an office worker in finance and construction, Grimes had gone to Florida to be a speaker for a public-policy group. A week or two into the job, whatever was afflicting her still wasn’t abating, and before long her speech became so jumbled that she couldn’t form a complete sentence in front of an audience.
She saw an internist, a neurologist, then a psychiatrist, and still had no explanation. “If we can’t test it,” one said, “it doesn’t exist.” Grimes started poking around online and soon remembered reading an article about the potentially deleterious health effects of the new “smart” electricity meters that were rolling out across the country. The devices send customers’ usage data back to the utility over wireless signals. Did her building have them?
She went outside to inspect the place and found no fewer than 17 of the meters strapped to the side of the building.
Grimes’s sleuthing didn’t end there. She went back online and found herself scrolling through tale after tale of people all over the world getting sick from the devices. And it wasn’t just smart meters. It turned out there was a whole community of people out there who called themselves “electrosensitives” and said they were suffering due to the electromagnetic frequencies that radiate wirelessly from cell phones, wi-fi networks, radio waves, and virtually every other modern technology that the rest of society now thinks of as indispensable.
The affliction has been dubbed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity,” or EHS, and it involves a textbook’s worth of ailments: headaches, nausea, insomnia, chest pains, disorientation, digestive difficulties, and so on. Mainstream medicine doesn’t recognize the syndrome, but the symptoms described everything Grimes was experiencing.
She went back to her doctors with her newfound evidence of EHS, relieved to have sorted out the mystery. But she got no sympathy. As she puts it, “They look at you like you have three heads.”
Grimes moved to a new building, then another, and six more times, but at each turn a smart-meter rollout wasn’t far behind. “I sat down there in Florida,” she says, “and just prayed to God: ‘Where is my way out?’ ”
Green Bank is hunkered down in the Alleghenies about four hours from DC. Because no cell or wi-fi service is allowed, the only way anyone just passing through can reach the rest of the world is by using the pay phone on the side of a road in town.
That’s when she heard about a little town called Green Bank, West Virginia.
In Green Bank, you can’t make a call on your cell phone, and you can’t text on it, either. Wireless internet is outlawed, as is Bluetooth. It’s a premodern place by design, devoid of the gadgets and technologies that define life today. And thanks to Uncle Sam, it will stay that way: The town is part of a federally mandated zone where a government high-tech facility’s needs come first. Wireless signals are verboten.
In electromagnetic terms, it’s the quietest place on Earth—blanketed by the kind of silence that’s golden to electrosensitives like Monique Grimes.
And as she discovered, it’s become a refuge for them.
Over the last few years, electrosensitives have flocked to the tech-free idyll in West Virginia, taking shelter beside cows and farms and fellow sufferers. Up here, no one would look at them as if they had three heads. Well, except for the locals, that is.
The reason for all the peace and quiet in town is visible the moment you arrive.
It’s the Robert C. Byrd telescope, a gleaming white, 485-foot-tall behemoth of a dish that looms over tiny Green Bank, population 143.
There’s only one road into town, about four hours from DC. The way there snakes through the Allegheny Mountains, each town you pass through smaller than the last as the bars on your cell phone fall like dominoes and the scan function on the radio ceases to work, the dial rotating endlessly in search of signals.
Where the forest ends, the town begins. The valley opens to cattle farms and old wooden barns, a post office and a library, a bank and Henry’s Quick Stop, a combination gas station/convenience store/rustic interior-decor shop that houses Green Bank’s nearest approximation to a sit-down restaurant. Across the street, the Dollar General was a lifesaver when it opened five years ago—before that, the closest grocery store was in Marlinton, 26 miles down the road.
At the northern end of town is the other visible curiosity in Green Bank besides the telescope: a rusted pay phone. If you’re not from there, it’s ostensibly the only way to reach the rest of the world. “Sometimes you get people passing through who get aggravated they can’t get a signal,” says Bob Earvine, owner of Trents General Store. “But just about anybody will let you use their phone.”
Rising above it all is the Robert C. Byrd Green Bank Telescope, a.k.a. the GBT. It’s the largest of its kind in the world and one of nine in Green Bank, all of them government-owned and operated by the National Radio Astronomy Observatory.
The telescopes aren’t “ocular” ones, the kind you’re probably thinking of. They’re radio telescopes. So instead of putting your eye to the apparatus and looking for distant stars, you listen for them. The patterns of electromagnetic radiation coming off a planet or other celestial bodies apparently reveal entirely different things than what’s visible to the eye, and even allow scientists to study regions of space where light can’t reach. In recent years, the telescopes have been used to track NASA’s Cassini probe to Saturn’s moon and to examine Mercury’s molten core.
Obscure as the work may sound, there’s a long line of astronomers all over the world who want to use the GBT, a telescope known to be so sensitive that it can pick up the energy equivalent of a single snowflake hitting the ground. These scientists swamp the NRAO with their research proposals—the observatory is four times oversubscribed.
So why does such a sensitive listening tool need total technological silence to operate? A little history—starting with telephones, in fact—helps explain.
In 1932, when Bell Labs was installing phone systems across the US, its technicians kept hearing static over the transmissions. The company hired an electrical engineer to find the source, and he discovered that all the noise was “the Milky Way galaxy itself,” says Mike Holstine, the telescope’s business manager, with a hint of awe in his voice.
Two decades later, the federal government decided the country should invest in listening to the far reaches of the galaxy and needed its own radio telescope to do so. The question was where to put it. Because even a basic AM radio transmission is enough to overpower faint readings from outer space, the only place for such a listening post was the hinterlands.
Enter Green Bank. Surrounded by the Alleghenies, and thus buffered from outside frequencies, the rural town had little established industry—or potential for one. That meant the telescope wouldn’t have to deal with a population influx later. Plus, Green Bank sat on the 38th Parallel, with an ideal view of the Milky Way.
In 1958, the Federal Communications Commission established the 13,000-square-mile National Radio Quiet Zone, a one-of-a-kind area encompassing Green Bank where, to this day, electromagnetic silence is enforced every hour of every day. The strictest rules are found within the ten square miles immediately surrounding Green Bank, where most forms of modern communication—i.e., cell phones and wi-fi—are banned under state law. Residents are allowed to use land-line phones and wired internet, “but it is sloooow,” in the words of one Green Banker.
The Quiet Zone is a vast place, much of it made up of national parks and empty space, the whole thing roughly the size of Maryland. But lately, because of how much its way of life has diverged from the rest of America’s and whom that’s attracted to the place, the little town of Green Bank has come to feel smaller than ever.
In 2007, Diane Schou became one of the first electrosensitives to move to Green Bank.
Diane Schou, above, is one of the first electrosensitives to move to Green Bank.
Before that, she had been a PhD working on an Iowa research farm she owned with her husband, Bert, also an electrosensitive. After the Schous, there was Jennifer Wood, once an architect working for the University of Hawaii. And Monique Grimes, the former catering-company owner. One after another, the electrosensitives rolled into Green Bank, until there were roughly two dozen—no small number for a 143-person town.
For many, the journey there was long and frustrating. Schou, for instance, had identified the cell-phone tower near her home in Iowa as the culprit of her woes back in 2003, but when she complained to company and government officials, she couldn’t get any traction. She spent months living in a Faraday cage, a wood-framed box with metal meshing that blocked out cell signals (more typically used by scientists conducting experiments in labs). She even briefly considered buying a repurposed space suit so she could get out of the house without pain. “I was told it would be $24,000,” she says. “I don’t have that kind of money. And what if it gets a hole in it?”
She and Bert drove hundreds of thousands of miles across the United States looking for a safe place to stay and spent time with relatives in Sweden, the first country to recognize electromagnetic hypersensitivity as a disability. It was a national-park ranger in North Carolina who ultimately told Schou about Green Bank, and she tried the place out while living in her car behind Henry’s Quick Stop.
The transition wasn’t easy. “Coming to Green Bank was a culture shock,” she says. “If you want to have Starbucks and shopping malls, you won’t survive here.” But the Schous didn’t feel they had a lot of choice, given how much better they felt inside the Quiet Zone. The couple found an unfinished home and sold half of their Iowa farm to buy, finish, and rewire it.
It wasn’t long before Diane Schou became the de facto electrosensitive gatekeeper of Green Bank. Fellow sufferers heard about her and spread the word, and soon she was letting visitors stay in her home when they came to try the place out for themselves. Jennifer Wood, the former architect, who says her own husband didn’t believe her disease was real, remembers what it was like to walk into Schou’s home and be welcomed by a handful of other electrosensitives. “It was just like family,” Wood says.
But not everyone in Green Bank was so keen to meet the new neighbors. “There have been some rough spots in dealing with other members of the community,” says the very diplomatic Sheriff David Jonese, whose Pocahontas County department has been called in several times to mediate disputes between old-timers and newcomers. “They want everybody in the stores and restaurants to change their lighting or turn their lights off when they’re there, which creates some issues.”
Like shoving matches.
Schou says that when she tried to get the local church to uninstall its fluorescent lights, which electrosensitives find excruciating, one local started fuming and pushed her before storming out.
Schou also asked the church not to use its wireless microphones and told people to stop using their cell phones as cameras around her. The senior center, one of the town’s few gathering places, obliged her request to replace the fluorescent lights in one area, but when she asked that her food be delivered to her from the center’s kitchen—so she wouldn’t have to walk under other fluorescents—Green Bankers began to protest.
“Some people started to deliberately expose me just to harm me,” she says.
Residents began approaching Schou and other electrosensitives with pocketfuls of electronics, trying to call their bluff. “It feels like at times you have the scarlet letter,” says Grimes, adding that she knows electrosensitives who conceal their condition.
But the special treatment wasn’t the old-timers’ only gripe with Schou. They were also growing angry at her for ushering people they considered truly scary into the community. A few years ago, one disturbed electrosensitive flew into a rage at the local library, decrying the “dumb hillbillies” who surrounded her, as the story goes. She rampaged from the post office to the bank to the auto shop, belligerently screaming before police finally ticketed her and banned her from a couple of public places around town. (She’s gone now.)
Things got so tense that Schou and her husband decided to hold an “educational session” at the senior center that they hoped would clear the air. Instead, it devolved into a confrontation between the couple and a handful of Green Bankers upset about the demands she’d been making. “I call that my tar-and-feathering,” she says.
Schou doesn’t go to the center anymore, but the tarring-and-feathering goes on. Sometimes, Schou says, she’ll get middle-of-the-night phone calls from voices telling her to leave town and go back where she came from. One day, she went out to get the mail and found a violent surprise. Inside the mailbox was a dead groundhog, shot and rotting.
Rewind a few decades and you see how all this has actually happened before in Green Bank.
Only then, instead of shunning the people who wanted to keep new technology out, the old-timers were shunning the people bringing it in.
After breaking ground on the initial telescope in 1957, the NRAO needed to hire PhDs and engineers, and it began hiring scientists from out of town. But the locals—whose farms and homes had been condemned and displaced to make room for the observatory’s campus—didn’t take so kindly to the influx. In 1965, a group of farmers even complained to their congressman that observatory scientists had caused a crop-killing drought.
“I remember one fella said the observatory would make it rain when they wanted it to and not rain when they didn’t want it to,” says Harold Crist, a 90-year-old Green Bank native who also worked for the telescope at one time.
Not that the big-city transplants instantly warmed to the tractor-driving locals. “The truth is each group privately thinks the other is barbaric,” a telescope engineer said in a 1965 Science article. “It’s the difference between cocktail parties and moonshine orgies.”
But with time came acceptance. Today many Green Bankers work various jobs at the telescope. The campus’s cafeteria is a favorite lunch spot for locals. And more than a few scientists moonlight as painters with work hanging in the small local art center.
The main “town/gown” wrinkle, if there is one, now involves staying on top of every last piece of technology that comes down the pike. When the Quiet Zone was established in the middle of the 20th century, the observatory only had to regulate things like AM radio. Next it was pagers and cell phones, too. Today there’s wi-fi, Bluetooth, and much more. “We’ve noticed an increase in general noise,” says Karen O’Neil, the observatory’s director. “Modern society and its gizmos has brought a need to have so much more stuff.”
Mike Holstine, telescope business manager.
To picture how an iPhone can block a radio signal from outer space, telescope business manager Mike Holstine says to imagine a candle in the dark: “They say the human eye can see that candle flickering from one mile away. But what if someone turns on a spotlight all of a sudden? The candle disappears.” The radio signals are so weak after traveling so many light-years that a mere wireless modem nearby overwhelms them and they’re gone.
For that reason, the observatory’s campus is careful to protect itself. Only diesel vehicles are allowed on-site, because a gasoline-powered engine’s spark plugs give off interfering radiation. Pine trees on the outskirts buffer passing cars. Even the cafeteria’s microwave—which, like all microwaves, emits radiation—is kept in a shielded cage.
It seems every tiny step forward for the rest of America brings unforeseen consequences to Green Bank. In 2007, a government mandate for tire-pressure sensors in all new cars went into effect. “Well, those give off a radio signal that interferes with our telescope,” says Holstine. “The technology around us changes all the time, and even the smallest thing has repercussions.”
To combat this, the NRAO formed the Interference Protection Group to hunt down rogue signals. “It’s as much art as it is science,” says technician Chuck Niday as he points out the machinery he uses to track interference in the Quiet Zone. There are spectrum analyzers, global positioning systems, bundles of wires, and a box with a circle of small bulbs that light up in the direction of the radiation.
It’s a tricky job—the signals bounce off buildings and mountains, change direction, hide themselves in the most unexpected places. A few years back, the protection group traced one to a dog pen in a couple’s back yard. The animal had chewed through his electric blanket, causing tiny jolts of electricity to arc across the frayed wires and send out radio interference. Although the NRAO has the ability to seek criminal charges against violators, in this case it took the kinder approach: It bought the unwitting couple a new blanket.
With the increasingly swift pace of products and apps flowing out of Silicon Valley, it seems the NRAO’s work may only get tougher. The more enticing the technology to hit the market, the more residents may find themselves questioning the opportunity cost associated with living in Green Bank. Already, there are Green Bankers who are hungry for shiny new toys and aren’t above flouting the rules.
At Green Bank Elementary-Middle School, right next door to the telescope, you’d expect to find teenagers bemoaning the unavailability of the cool gadgets they see on TV. But that’s not the case. According to one seventh-grader, plenty of kids in Green Bank have smartphones, and although they can’t get a signal, they’ve found a work-around. By connecting to a home wi-fi network (that the telescope interference protectors apparently haven’t picked up on), kids don’t need a cell network to talk to their friends—they can just use the new texting functions in apps like Facebook and Snapchat. Teenagers and technology, it seems, will always find a way.
It would be easy to dismiss the Green Bankers who don’t like their new electrosensitive neighbors as xenophobes.
But that wouldn’t be fair. Well beyond the town’s borders, there’s a spirited debate over whether EHS is real.
The true believers generally cite a Louisiana State University study conducted in 2011. Researchers there randomly exposed one electrosensitive to an electromagnetic field and concluded that “EMF hypersensitivity can occur as a bona fide environmentally inducible neurological syndrome.”
But Timothy J. Jorgensen, a Georgetown professor who researches the health effects of environmental radiation, says the LSU study was too small to prove anything and that more comprehensive research has failed to show a correlation between symptoms and electromagnetic radiation. He doesn’t categorically deny the possibility of EHS, but in the absence of evidence, he says, just because something is plausible doesn’t make it true. “There’s no evidence that ghosts exist, but I can’t prove to you there are no ghosts,” as Jorgensen puts it.
“I feel for these people because they do have health problems,” he adds. “What the cause is, I have no idea, but it’s not wi-fi.”
The debate has clearly spilled over into the dinner-table chitchat of Green Bankers.
Pat Wilfong, a cell-phone-owning native, says she once told an electrosensitive that she was afraid her aging mother’s car might break down in the mountains and she’d have no way to call for help—only to have the EHS sufferer flippantly suggest she use a primitive walkie-talkie instead. “That made me feel like she didn’t care about my mother, or my feelings,” Wilfong says.
She’s friendly with some electrosensitives but still skeptical that EHS exists. “I agree that something makes them sick,” she says. “I’m not sure that it’s always what someone thinks it is, or what someone else tells them it is.”
Arnie Stewart, on the other hand, became convinced the disease was real after doing a little detective work himself. Stewart—who grew up visiting a family farm outside Green Bank and moved there as a retiree seven years ago—knew that a few of his buddies in his (sanctioned) ham-radio club thought the whole thing was a sham. So he asked an electrosensitive to come to a club meeting earlier this year to explain her disease.
“She was presenting her case, and about ten minutes later she came up to me and says, ‘Arnie, someone has a cell phone on in here,’ ” Stewart recalls, noting that he saw the electrosensitive woman’s hands redden and her wrists swell. He asked the room if anyone had a phone powered up. “And this one guy very sheepishly said, ‘Oh, I do have one, and it’s on.’ That was his test, and she passed it. When that happened, everyone snapped to and listened.”
Green Bank’s electrosensitives have different ways of coping, it seems. A good number are press-shy and keep to themselves—they don’t want to draw more attention to themselves than they already have. “There are people who have come in and managed to assimilate into the community, get jobs, but they still have to be very careful,” says Monique Grimes.
The ones who speak out know how “outlandish” EHS sounds to the uninitiated, as Jennifer Wood puts it, and do so in hopes of rallying people to their side. They know there’s some mending to be done in the community. “To be fair, we’ve had a few difficult people come in,” Wood says. “We’ve had some who are lovely and good communicators, but others who are distraught and very prickly or rude.”
The clash may ultimately be settled by a force outside Green Bankers’ control: the fate of the thing that started all the trouble in the first place—the telescope.
It’s funded entirely by the National Science Foundation, and two years ago, in a wave of belt-tightening across the federal government, a committee recommended shutting down the campus. NSF hasn’t said whether it will accept the proposal, but a decision is expected this year. If Washington chooses to divest, and the observatory can’t find outside funding, it could close by 2017.
Which might effectively spell the end of Green Bank’s quaint little tech-free life.
Some say that in the long run, that may be best for the town. “We’ll be so far out of the loop one of these days that we won’t be able to catch up,” says Harold Crist, who raised six children in the Quiet Zone and watched some of them move away. “I think it’s gonna turn us into a bunch of dinosaurs. People come back home and think we’re living in the dark ages.”
As it is, Green Bankers such as Pat Wilfong are already traveling south to Marlinton, the nearest town with a cell tower, to use their phones. (A few towns in the Quiet Zone can have towers because they face away from the telescope.) They’re doing it so often that the owners of a patch of ground with particularly good service in Marlinton once posted a sign warding off message-checking loiterers.
But a shuttered telescope would obviously be a nightmare for the electrosensitives—just as some of them are making inroads with the locals.
Monique Grimes, for instance. In the fall of 2013, she married Tom Grimes, a native Green Banker who owns a spacious hundred acres where lamb and sheep roam. Tom says his wife has been helping out lately around the farm, even sanding a new roof on the shed. “She’s fit in better than a lot of country girls do.”
Tom makes sure theirs is an equal partnership. “He introduces me to a lot of people—they get to know me first as Mo, not as an electrosensitive,” Monique says. “Now friends of ours have gone so far as to replace the light bulbs in their house because they want me to come and visit.”
Whatever happens to the telescope, Monique is pretty convinced that her version of the science will prevail and that future generations will see the folly of iPhones and laptops just like past ones did asbestos and cigarettes. As one sympathetic doctor told her, “You were just born a hundred years before your time.”
“Or after,” Tom quips, knowing there’s a pretty decent chance they’re sitting in the last quiet place on Earth.

This article appears in the January 2015 issue of Washingtonian.

I Love This Story: "Stars Shine Bright In Ireland's Dark Sky Reserve"

$
0
0


Stars Shine Bright In Ireland's Dark 

Sky Reserve

MELISSA BLOCK, HOST:
And now a return trip to one of the darkest places on earth. It's a story that will leave you seeing stars or at least wanting to. An organization called The International Dark-Sky Association has given gold-tier status to three places - places where the full array of visible sky phenomena can be viewed. One is in Namibia, another in New Zealand. In this story, first heard on Morning Edition, NPR's Ari Shapiro takes us to the only gold-tier site in the Northern Hemisphere. It's in Southwestern Ireland. And he had an enthusiastic guide.
(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED BROADCAST)
JULIE ORMONDE: Oh, my God. Oh.
ARI SHAPIRO, BYLINE: You live here and you're still so impressed with this.
ORMONDE: I know. I always am, always.
SHAPIRO: I mean, it's my first time. I'm impressed, but you're here every night.
ORMONDE: No, I always - it never, ever stops. Could you put off that light there? Great.
SHAPIRO: Julie Ormonde talks about the night sky the way a stage mother talks about her child's performance.
ORMONDE: It's just - I just can't stop admiring it. I just love looking at.
SHAPIRO: We're standing in a parking lot in the middle of the Kerry International Dark Sky Reserve. The Kerry Mountains are on one side of us, the Atlantic Ocean on the other. Ormonde moved here from Dublin almost 20 years ago. She was a secretary and mother of four with a passion for astronomy. A few days after she arrived, she sent her son out to get fuel for the fireplace.
ORMONDE: And next fall, he come crashing through the door.
Mom, mom, quick, quick, quick, come out here.
I nearly had a heart attack running out the door, expecting to see a catastrophe somewhere.
SHAPIRO: She followed her son out the door into the pitch black night.
ORMONDE: And he said, mom, mom, look. Look at the stars. And we looked up and it was like this. I have never seen anything like it. It was just a wonderland.
SHAPIRO: Ormonde loves pointing out constellations, but on that night she couldn't find any of them.
ORMONDE: There was simply too many stars.
SHAPIRO: Time passed and she wondered why the community had no astronomy club.
ORMONDE: And like everybody else on the planet you're waiting for somebody else, so then I decided...
SHAPIRO: Oh, I just saw a shooting star.
ORMONDE: You will see them...
SHAPIRO: I'm sorry to interrupt.
ORMONDE: No, you will see them now.
SHAPIRO: Eventually, she started a group, but she still wasn't satisfied. Then she heard about the International Dark-Sky Association in Tuscon, Arizona. John Barentine is a program manager there.
JOHN BARENTINE: It's not just going around and identifying the places that are dark, but rather finding ways to make sure that they stay dark in the future so that generations from now people will still be able to come to these places and have that experience.
SHAPIRO: Back in Kerry, Ireland, Julie Ormonde started a campaign to get formal recognition for this area. She asked local councils to change their outdoor street lighting. She spoke with neighborhood groups about light pollution from homes because unlike other dark sky reserves, which may be in the middle of nowhere, people actually live and work in this area.
ORMONDE: In the core zone, we have a playground. We have a little school. We have a small, little pub, which is a two-story farmhouse with the tiniest little pub downstairs where you can have a pint.
SHAPIRO: And there's a hostel, which gets a regular stream of astronomers and amateur stargazers. Frieda Straub is the manager. She's French and moved here after living in Paris and New York.
FRIEDA STRAUB: People come from all over the world and they don't sleep at night. Seriously, they do not sleep. I mean, they go to their bed at four in the morning and then they get up at five, and it's amazing.
SHAPIRO: It's been one year since the Dark-Sky Association recognized Kerry with gold-tier status. You can tell the community has bought into this program because when you drive through town it's pitch black. All the houses have their lights off. It's easy to assume that these are summer rental homes where people have left for the winter, but locals say no, people are home. They just want to leave the lights off so everyone can see the stars. Ari Shapiro, NPR News.

Fleetwood Mac With Stevie Nicks Singine Rhiannon Live, 1976

$
0
0
Alan: In the mid-'70s, while residing in Usingen, Germany, I was swept away by the music of Fleetwood Mac, the first time I'd been utterly transported since the British "Invasion," The Byrds and Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young.

The following live performance of "Rhiannon" is exceptional.
http://www.rollingstone.com/music/features/17-reasons-this-rhiannon-clip-is-the-coolest-thing-in-the-universe-20150114?google_editors_picks=true

Fleetwood Mac's Greatest Hits
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5Q1MtkMzDc




Many More People Are Dying From Gun Suicides Than Gun-Related Homicides

$
0
0
Gun suicides are becoming far more common than gun-related homicides, accounting for 64 percent of all gun deaths in 2012, according to new statistics. And the suicides have become especially common among older white men.
There were 32,288 deaths from firearm violence in the United States in 2012, a rate that's remained relatively stable over the past few years. But since 2006, gun suicides have increased from 57 percent of all firearm-related deaths, according to research published this month in the Annual Review of Public Health.
Gun deaths by suicide have outpaced homicide-related deaths in the United States over the past 35 years. But since 2006, the decrease in gun-related homicides have almost been matched by the increase of gun suicides, according to the study from Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis.
Suicide risk rises in adolescence, but it also increases sharply among white men in retirement age. By 85 and older, the gun suicide rate for white men was five times higher than the rate for black men and 3.2 times the rate for Hispanic men.
Though homicides have been decreasing, there's still a wide racial disparity in gun violence. Young black adult men, ages 20-29, are 20 times more likely than white men of the same age to be killed by a firearm. And the gun homicide rate is at least five times higher compared to Hispanic men ages 20-29.
About 516 people in 2012 were killed accidentally by guns, or about 1.6 percent of all gun deaths that year — though, these accidental deaths may be under reported.
Mass gun killings, which capture widespread media attention for a few days, account for just a small portion of gun-related deaths. The four worst events in the past 15 years resulted in a combined 84 homicides, according to the report —about the same number of people who have been killed by guns in the United States everyday between 2003 and 2012.
If the current pace continues, the number of young people who die from gun violence next year is projected to outnumber those who die in car accidents, according to a new report from the Center for American Progress.
The new U.S. Surgeon General's nomination was held up by more than a year largely because the NRA opposed him for having the nerve to call guns a health care issue. But these new statistics underscore why you can't ignore firearm deaths as a threat to public health.
Jason Millman covers all things health policy, with a focus on Obamacare implementation. He previously covered health policy for Politico.


Why The Poor Pay More For Everything. Often Much More

$
0
0

This powerful Reddit thread reveals how the poor get by in America

The poor pay more for everything, from rolls of toilet paper to furniture. It's not because they're spendthrifts, either. If you're denied a checking account, there's no way for you to avoid paying a fee to cash a paycheck. If you need to buy a car to get to work, you'll have to accept whatever higher interest rate you're offered. If you don't have a car, the bus fare might eat up the change you'd save shopping at a larger grocery store as opposed to the local corner store.
It's easy to feel that "when you are poor, the 'system' is set up to keep you that way," in the words of one Reddit user, "rugtoad." That comment is at the top of an extraordinary thread full of devastating stories about what it's like to get by with nothing in the United States of 2015.
"Growing up really poor means realizing in your twenties that Mommy was lying when she said she already ate," wrote "deviant_devices," another commenter.
You can buy only a single pack of paper towels at a time, rather than saving on a bundle of 10, as "Meepshesaid" noted:
When you are broke, you can't plan ahead or shop sales or buy in bulk. Poor people wait to buy something until they absolutely need it, so they have to pay whatever the going price is at that moment. If ten-packs of paper towels are on sale for half price, that's great, but you can only afford one roll anyway. In this way, poor people actually pay more than others for common staple goods.
You can't pay for health insurance, and instead buy medicine from pet stores, as "colorcoma" writes:
I buy "fish" antibiotics online because I can't afford health care. … Amoxicillin and such. Mostly for husband who has Lyme's disease. We can't afford our monthly health care rates. We are 30somethings in the US. Really feel like a "bottom feeder".
You can't also buy shoes that will last for more than a few months, according to "DrStephenFalken":
I'm making $150- $200 a week and I need new shoes. So I can buy $60 shoes that will last or $15 walmart shoes. So I buy the walmart shoes and some groceries instead of just the $60 shoes and no groceries. Three months later I'll need new shoes again. But I'll also have to pay rent and my light bill is due. So I'll pay the light bill and buy some "shoe glue" for $4 to fix my shoes for another few weeks until I can buy the $15 ones again.
Economists have documented the "ghetto tax," as the additional costs of living paid by the poor are often known. A Brookings study from 2006 found that someone who is not able to open a checking account will typically pay between $5 and $50 to cash a $500 check, and that people in poor neighborhoods paid several hundred dollars more for homeowner's insurance, or to buy a car of a given make and model, than someone living in a wealthier neighborhood.
A television that costs $200 might cost $700 on one of the payment plans that poor people are obliged to use, the study found.
There are all kinds of reasons why the poor pay more. Maybe they can be summed up this way: The ability to draw on a pool of cash always saves you money down the line. Lenders will give you a better rate on a car. You can avoid relying unscrupulous firms with exorbitant rates to make it to your next paycheck.
As Elise Gould, an economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute told me, the poor are "liquidity-constrained."
"There's all these vicious cycles that poor people face," she said. "You get a job, but you need a car to get to a job." A guarantee of financial security in the future often costs money now.
This is a problem not just for the very poor, but also for the middle class, Gould noted. Their kids might have to take out loans to go to college, for example, while wealthier parents can pay in cash. And they lose the discounts on fees that financial institutions give to clients with large balances.
Even among the very rich, economist Thomas Piketty's data suggests that those with more money are able to earn higher returns on their investments.
To be sure, however, the problem is most acute at the bottom of the income distribution. The commenter "drink[expletive]fight." whom I'll quote at length, vividly describes a poor upbringing:
Hauling food out of the dumpster at 7-11, because they threw away piles of chip bags that were a day over their expiration. (Manager caught us one day, they apparently told the employees to stab a hole in each chip bag after that. NBD, we just had to sniff each bag to make sure nothing was contaminated). Checking neighbors' trash bins - rescuing half a damn pizza some idiots had ordered the night before, then threw away after a handful of slices. Hauling in furniture from alleyways - my littlest sibling, my sister, received a twin bed mattress that had a grotesque brown stain on it, looked like someone had [expletive] a gallon of wet feces onto it. No [expletive] given, we scrubbed that [expletive] with bleach over and over, and she slept on it for years.
And then there were times when the welfare checks or food stamps didn't arrive, and the trash bins were not producing food. I grew up in a fairly rural area. When that happened?
I know that in winter, Grey Squirrel tastes [expletive] gross. Sure, people from the South can claim that their brown and red squirrels are delicious, but I would rather eat [expletive] out of a pig's ass than eat another bite of goddamn squirrel meat. Or jackrabbit. Or goddamned dandelion greens.
It says a lot about the contemporary U.S. economy is that some people have to stop taking part it in altogether.
Max Ehrenfreund is a blogger on the Financial desk and writes for Know More and Wonkblog.


No One Can Figure Out Why Crime Is So Low

$
0
0

No one can figure out why crime is so low

The late-20th-century crime wave has crested and ebbed, writes Eric Eckholm, but where it came from and where it went remains a mystery:
The reasons for the broad drop in crime remain elusive. It has confounded both those from the right who had predicted that waves of young predators would terrorize communities and those on the left who watched crime fall even through ups and downs in poverty and unemployment. ...
Various experts have also linked the fall in violence to the aging of the population, low inflation rates and even the decline in early-childhood lead exposure.
But in the end, none of these factors fully explain a drop that occurred, in tandem, in much of the world.
That's why today's chart of the day, from The New York Times, is something of a Rorschach test. Everyone sees what they want to see in it. New York Police Commissioner William Bratton puts the decline down to the "broken windows" theory of aggressive policing. Advocates of harsh sentencing laws can argue that more criminals were spending more time in jail, and that others, threatened with long terms, gave up their accomplices once apprehended.
As politicians on the right and the left look for alternatives to being tough on crime, there will be plenty of somber warnings about keeping the streets safe, but the evidence is limited.

Gringos Are Nuts: Target Shooting Is A $10,000,000,000.00 Business

White Privilege: Why Woody Allen's Career Survived And Bill Cosby's Didn't

$
0
0



Oscar-winning filmmaker Woody Allen is set to write and direct a new half-hour TV series for Amazon’s streaming service. (Amazon’s founder and CEO, Jeffrey P. Bezos, is also the owner of The Washington Post.) (Reuters)
Amazon announced today that Woody Allen will write and direct a series for the company. Two months ago, Netflix announced it would no longer air Bill Cosby’s comedy special; he also saw NBC scuttle discussions for a new sitcom.
So: We have two septuagenarian comedy icons, one white and one black, both recently mired in accusations about long-ago sex crimes. . . but one is rewarded with an exciting new gig, while the other is having his career annihilated.
"Use your White Privilege, Luke."
Is it fair? Ultimately we’re talking about big corporations deciding which entertainers are capable of turning a profit for them. “Fair” is probably beside the point.
But why is one entertainer surviving a sex scandal while the other is not? Let’s try to break this down.

Is it the number of accusers?
In the case of Cosby, 77, a couple dozen women have come forward, all telling remarkably similar stories about how he drugged and raped them. As the Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates put it best, back when there were still only 15 Cosby accusers: “Believing Bill Cosby does not require you to take one person’s word over another — it requires you take one person’s word over 15 others.”
Meanwhile, Allen, 79, has only one accuser: Dylan Farrow, the adopted daughter of Mia Farrow, who was later formally adopted by Allen as well. New York Times columnist Nick Kristof let Dylan take over his column last year so that she could tell her story, and it was an incredibly troubling one. She alleged that, in 1992, when she was seven years old, the director took her to an attic and sexually assaulted her while whispering that she was a good girl.
Arguably, it’s easier for fans to ignore one accuser than 30. (Cosby himself benefited from that dynamic; when he was only facing a couple of accusers a decade ago, the stories didn’t really stick.) Still, even though Allen’s case is smaller it’s no less weird, what with him leaving Mia Farrow around the time of the original accusations to take up with another of her daughters, Soon-Yi Previn. So maybe the real dynamic here is. . .
How they handled the accusations?
Cosby and Allen had very different crisis-mangement strategies. Allen took to the New York Times to publicly refute Farrow’s claims and gave an uncommonly intimate view into his private life, even addressing rumors (stoked by Mia Farrow in a Vanity Fair interview) that his supposedly biological son Ronan may, in fact, be Frank Sinatra’s. Meanwhile, Dylan’s brother went on the record claiming Mia Farrow implanted false memories in her daughter’s mind.
Cosby let his lawyer do the denying — a full-time job now, what with the steady stream of women stepping forward. When the New York Post’s Stacy Brown managed to get through to Cosby over the phone after the allegations broke, he said: “Let me say this. I only expect the black media to uphold the standards of excellence in journalism and when you do that you have to go in with a neutral mind.” Cosby’s lawyer claims those comments were misconstrued. But that brings us to another point. . .
Is it something about their personalities? 
Hannibal Buress, the comedian who put the Cosby allegations back into the public consciousness, joked in his stand-up special that he hates Cosby’s smugness — an attitude of “I can talk down to you because I had a successful sitcom,” as he put it. Even when he wasn’t Cliff Huxtable, Cosby wanted to be the father figure, teaching people right from wrong.
You can’t say Woody Allen has ever held himself up as a moral paragon. For years before and after the Farrow allegations, his movies have had a creepy May-December romantic dynamic, not to mention some decidedly unlikeable characters. And once again, this is the guy who married his ex-girlfriend’s daughter, decades his junior.
Or is it just timing?
The renewed Cosby accusations exploded just as he was plotting a comeback after several quiet years. His “Far From Finished” tour, which now seems like an unfortunate moniker, was in full swing, and he and NBC were working on another sitcom. Plus, there was a much-hyped new bio, which raised eyebrows by conspicuously failing to mention the old accusations. Maybe stepping back into the limelight after all these years, Cosby was a riper target for the renewed allegations.
Allen, on the other hand, had never taken a break, generally releasing a small movie each year, thus never really having to crank up the hype machine or call attention to himself by resurfacing; nor did he take a break after last year’s uproar. He’s currently working on a new movie with Emma Stone and Joaquin Phoenix. His deal with Amazon (whose CEO Jeffrey Bezos owns The Washington Post) is novel, to be sure — but it didn’t hit the news until nearly a year after his scandal died down again.


Washington-area native Stephanie Merry covers movies, theater and art for Weekend and the Going Out Guide. She’s also the section’s de facto expert on yoga, gluten-free dining and bicycle commuting.

Al Qaeda Disbands; Says Job Of Destroying U.S. Economy Now In Congress's Hands

$
0
0

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) -- The international terror group known as Al Qaeda announced its dissolution today, saying that "our mission of destroying the American economy is now in the capable hands of the U.S. Congress." 

In an official statement published on the group's website, the current leader of Al Qaeda said that Congress's conduct during the so-called "fiscal-cliff" showdown convinced the terrorists that they had been outdone. "We've been working overtime trying to come up with ways to terrorize the American people and wreck their economy," said the statement from Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahiri. 

"But even we couldn't come up with something like this." Mr. al-Zawhiri said that the idea of holding the entire nation hostage with a clock ticking down to the end of the year "is completely insane and worthy of a Bond villain.""As terrorists, every now and then you have to step back and admire when someone else has beaten you at your own game," he said. "This is one of those times." 

The Al Qaeda leader was fulsome in his praise for congressional leaders, saying, "We have made many scary videos in our time but none of them were as terrifying as Mitch McConnell." 

As for the future of Al Qaeda, the statement said that it would no longer be a terror network but would become "more of a social network," offering reviews of new music, movies and video games. In its first movie review, Al Qaeda gave the film "Zero Dark Thirty" two thumbs down.


Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité,


Obama Has 46% Approval At Start Of Year 7. Bush Was At 28% Going Into Year 7

Republicans Must Agree On How To Replace Obamacare. Good Luck!

$
0
0

"Obamacare: Where's The Train Wreck?"

Alan: It is impossible for Republicans to devise ANY plan for universal healthcare that does not include an "individual mandate" or some other unpalatable tax. 

It cannot be done. 

Mitt Romney created the "individual mandate" precisely because it was the least offensive way to pay for a universal system.

Republicans will either stop their chatter about repealing Obamacare or they will proceed with the attempt hoping to God they fail.

If they do manage to repeal Obamacare, the number of uninsured people will soar, partly due to Obamacare's demise but also because there is no way to recompense insurance companies for "high risk" policy holders except an individual mandate or some other tax hike.

The GOP is hanging on razor-sharp horns of a dilemma it created for itself. 

Republicans must agree on how to replace Obamacare. "A freer, more responsive market would, over time, improve consumer choice, increase quality and reduce costs -- just as it does in other sectors. Trouble is, the party's broad consensus breaks down over precisely how much government intervention is necessary to realize those goals. The philosophical differences lead to policy conflicts." Bloomberg View



Islamophobia Is Not a Myth

$
0
0
Rebecca Cook/Reuters/The Atlantic

Whites Think Discrimination Against Them Is A Bigger Problem Than Bias Against Blacks

Alan: It is surpassingly difficult for an individual to admit s/he is projecting negative psychological material onto another person, group or institution because acknowledgement of projections coincides with recognition that the fault lies within, not with the designated scapegoat. 

It is may be fair to say that the moment a person owns a projection -- truly accepts it as one's "own" -- the projection stops.

Conversely, absent "ownership" of projection, the behavior continues, typically amidst shrill, contemptuous denial.

Psychological Projection Indicts "The Good Christians," Not The People They Indict


Islamophobia Is Not a Myth

Neither is the pattern of innocent Muslims suffering in the aftermath of terrorist attacks perpetrated by their radicalized co-religionists.
In a National Review column titled, "Islamophobia Is a Myth," Brendan O'Neill complains that terrorist attacks perpetrated by radical Islamists are routinely followed by liberals urging the masses to refrain from attacking innocent Muslims.
"The blood on the floor of the Charlie Hebdo offices was still wet when brow-furrowed observers started saying: 'Oh no, the Muslims! Will they be attacked?'" he wrote. "It’s the same after every terrorist attack: from 9/11 to 7/7 in London to last year’s Sydney siege to Paris today: Liberals’ instant, almost Pavlovian response to Islamist terror attacks... is to worry about a violent uprising of the ill-educated against Muslims. The uprising never comes, but that doesn’t halt their fantasy fears."
As he sees it,
"the idea of Islamophobia has always been informed more by the swirling fantasies and panics of the political and media elites than by any real, measurable levels of hate or violence against Muslims. Yes, some dud grenades were thrown into the courtyard of a mosque in the French city of Le Mans after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, though mercifully they didn’t explode and no one was around to be injured. That is a foul act and the person or people who did it should be found and punished. But fears about widespread anti-Muslim violence, about the spread of toxic Islamophobic hate through the streets and in workplaces, are unfounded, because their driving force is the anti-natives, anti-pleb prejudices of the elites rather than any hard evidence of extreme hostility to Muslims."
My belief that Muslims are at special risk after a terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamist radicals is grounded in the fact that after the September 11 terrorist attacks, despite a conservative president urging his countrymen to refrain from blaming their Muslim neighbors, hate crimes against Muslim Americans spiked dramatically.
The levels of increased hate were "real" and "measurable."
My notion that Islamophobia, or irrational fear of mainstream Muslims, is a recognizable feature of post-9/11 America is informed by the several cities that have attempted to stop the construction of mosques, state attempts to ban sharia law as if we're on the cusp of being ruled by it, fears that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, profiling of Muslim college students for no reason other than their religion, the anti-Muslim training materialsthat the FBI somehow adopted and used after 9/11, and dozens of Muslims I've interviewed who say that other Americans are more fearful of them than was the case prior to the September 11 attacks.
British people who worried about anti-Muslim hate crimes after the July 7, 2005 London bombings were right to do so, in my view, because there were, in fact, anti-Muslim hate crimes prompted by the attacks, albeit not very many. Perhaps the smallness of the number was due partly to the chorus urging against a backlash.
It's too soon after the Sydney siege for a definitive account of its affect on hate crimes, but police in Australia reported a surge in anti-Muslim sentiment and incidents, just as one would expect from observing the aftermath of other terrorist attacks.
There has not, of course, been a mass violent uprising against Muslim Americans, or British Muslims, or Australian Muslims, or French Muslims. The implication that it's therefore irrational to worry about anti-Muslim bigotry or backlash is bizarre. A spike in hate crimes is enough to justify concern and attempts to preempt—surely it's better to nip the impulse to exact group revenge on Muslims in the bud rather than to act only if a catastrophic backlash has already taken shape!
Says O'Neill, "According to federal crime stats, in 2009 there were 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes; in 2010, there were 160. In a country of 330 million people, this is exceptionally low." But in 2000, there were 28 such incidents. What's wrong with inveighing against anti-Muslim bigotry that's responsible for 100 or so "extra" hate-crimes, or noting that the numbers were much worse immediately after 9/11... and worrying a spike could happen again? Calling for tolerance of a minority group at a moment of plausible peril is costless, prudent and humane, not objectionable. And if relative tolerance then prevails, that's a success, not an occasion to complain that elites weren't trusting enough in the masses.
There's a non-trivial chance that efforts to stigmatize an anti-Muslim backlash are partly responsible for the fact that there haven't been more hate crimes in the United States and that the post-9/11 spike has decreased, albeit not back to pre-9/11 levels.
That's certainly the intention of liberals, as well as many conservatives who followed President Bush's lead. The chance of success strikes me as a good reason to continue the campaign of stigma, even if the sensibilities of some conservatives are offended, as if suffering is a zero-sum game, or zealously guarding against Islamophobia somehow undermines the fight against terrorism. Insofar as mainstream Muslims are instrumental in informing on radicalized co-religionists who turn to violence, efforts to reach out in support of them are investments in counterterrorism in addition to being consistent with basic justice.
"Islamophobia is a code word for mainstream European elites’ fear of their own populations," O'Neil writes, "of their native hordes, whom they imagine to be unenlightened, prejudiced, easily led by the tabloid media, and given to outbursts of spite and violence." As it happens, human beings, in Europe and everywhere else, are often prejudiced, easily led by the media, and given to spite and violence. It is lovely to think that a violent faction on the European right will never again succeed in perpetrating horrific abuses against immigrants or ethnic minorities. To stigmatize those working to prevent such a future is a waste of stigma.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.
In a National Review column titled, "Islamophobia Is a Myth," Brendan O'Neill complains that terrorist attacks perpetrated by radical Islamists are routinely followed by liberals urging the masses to refrain from attacking innocent Muslims.
"The blood on the floor of the Charlie Hebdo offices was still wet when brow-furrowed observers started saying: 'Oh no, the Muslims! Will they be attacked?'" he wrote. "It’s the same after every terrorist attack: from 9/11 to 7/7 in London to last year’s Sydney siege to Paris today: Liberals’ instant, almost Pavlovian response to Islamist terror attacks... is to worry about a violent uprising of the ill-educated against Muslims. The uprising never comes, but that doesn’t halt their fantasy fears."
As he sees it,
"the idea of Islamophobia has always been informed more by the swirling fantasies and panics of the political and media elites than by any real, measurable levels of hate or violence against Muslims. Yes, some dud grenades were thrown into the courtyard of a mosque in the French city of Le Mans after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, though mercifully they didn’t explode and no one was around to be injured. That is a foul act and the person or people who did it should be found and punished. But fears about widespread anti-Muslim violence, about the spread of toxic Islamophobic hate through the streets and in workplaces, are unfounded, because their driving force is the anti-natives, anti-pleb prejudices of the elites rather than any hard evidence of extreme hostility to Muslims."
My belief that Muslims are at special risk after a terrorist attack perpetrated by Islamist radicals is grounded in the fact that after the September 11 terrorist attacks, despite a conservative president urging his countrymen to refrain from blaming their Muslim neighbors, hate crimes against Muslim Americans spiked dramatically.
The levels of increased hate were "real" and "measurable."
My notion that Islamophobia, or irrational fear of mainstream Muslims, is a recognizable feature of post-9/11 America is informed by the several cities that have attempted to stop the construction of mosques, state attempts to ban sharia law as if we're on the cusp of being ruled by it, fears that Barack Obama is a secret Muslim, profiling of Muslim college students for no reason other than their religion, the anti-Muslim training materialsthat the FBI somehow adopted and used after 9/11, and dozens of Muslims I've interviewed who say that other Americans are more fearful of them than was the case prior to the September 11 attacks.
British people who worried about anti-Muslim hate crimes after the July 7, 2005 London bombings were right to do so, in my view, because there were, in fact, anti-Muslim hate crimes prompted by the attacks, albeit not very many. Perhaps the smallness of the number was due partly to the chorus urging against a backlash.
It's too soon after the Sydney siege for a definitive account of its affect on hate crimes, but police in Australia reported a surge in anti-Muslim sentiment and incidents, just as one would expect from observing the aftermath of other terrorist attacks.
There has not, of course, been a mass violent uprising against Muslim Americans, or British Muslims, or Australian Muslims, or French Muslims. The implication that it's therefore irrational to worry about anti-Muslim bigotry or backlash is bizarre. A spike in hate crimes is enough to justify concern and attempts to preempt—surely it's better to nip the impulse to exact group revenge on Muslims in the bud rather than to act only if a catastrophic backlash has already taken shape!
Says O'Neill, "According to federal crime stats, in 2009 there were 107 anti-Muslim hate crimes; in 2010, there were 160. In a country of 330 million people, this is exceptionally low." But in 2000, there were 28 such incidents. What's wrong with inveighing against anti-Muslim bigotry that's responsible for 100 or so "extra" hate-crimes, or noting that the numbers were much worse immediately after 9/11... and worrying a spike could happen again? Calling for tolerance of a minority group at a moment of plausible peril is costless, prudent and humane, not objectionable. And if relative tolerance then prevails, that's a success, not an occasion to complain that elites weren't trusting enough in the masses.
There's a non-trivial chance that efforts to stigmatize an anti-Muslim backlash are partly responsible for the fact that there haven't been more hate crimes in the United States and that the post-9/11 spike has decreased, albeit not back to pre-9/11 levels.
That's certainly the intention of liberals, as well as many conservatives who followed President Bush's lead. The chance of success strikes me as a good reason to continue the campaign of stigma, even if the sensibilities of some conservatives are offended, as if suffering is a zero-sum game, or zealously guarding against Islamophobia somehow undermines the fight against terrorism. Insofar as mainstream Muslims are instrumental in informing on radicalized co-religionists who turn to violence, efforts to reach out in support of them are investments in counterterrorism in addition to being consistent with basic justice.
"Islamophobia is a code word for mainstream European elites’ fear of their own populations," O'Neil writes, "of their native hordes, whom they imagine to be unenlightened, prejudiced, easily led by the tabloid media, and given to outbursts of spite and violence." As it happens, human beings, in Europe and everywhere else, are often prejudiced, easily led by the media, and given to spite and violence. It is lovely to think that a violent faction on the European right will never again succeed in perpetrating horrific abuses against immigrants or ethnic minorities. To stigmatize those working to prevent such a future is a waste of stigma.
CONOR FRIEDERSDORF is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction.

Zuckerberg's Inaugural Pick For His "Year Of Books" Challenge: "The End Of Power"

$
0
0
Moisés Naím is Venezuelan and is a distinguished Carnegie Fellow.
Wikipedia Entry

Mark Zuckerberg's inaugural pick for his "Year of Books" challenge, The End of Power updates the very notion of power for the 21st century. Power, we know, is shifting: From West to East and North to South, from presidential palaces to public squares, from once formidable corporate behemoths to nimble startups and, slowly but surely, from men to women. But power is not merely dispersing; it is also decaying. Those in power today are more constrained in what they can do with it and more at risk of losing it than ever before.

In The End of Power, award-winning columnist and former Foreign Policy editor Moisés Naím illuminates the struggle between once-dominant megaplayers and the new micropowers challenging them in every field of human endeavor. Drawing on provocative, original research, Naím shows how the antiestablishment drive of micropowers can topple tyrants, dislodge monopolies, and open remarkable new opportunities, but it can also lead to chaos and paralysis. Naím deftly covers the seismic changes underway in business, religion, education, within families, and in all matters of war and peace. Examples abound in all walks of life: In 1977, eighty-nine countries were ruled by autocrats while today more than half the world’s population lives in democracies. CEO’s are more constrained and have shorter tenures than their predecessors. Modern tools of war, cheaper and more accessible, make it possible for groups like Hezbollah to afford their own drones. In the second half of 2010, the top ten hedge funds earned more than the world’s largest six banks combined. 

Those in power retain it by erecting powerful barriers to keep challengers at bay. Today, insurgent forces dismantle those barriers more quickly and easily than ever, only to find that they themselves become vulnerable in the process. In this accessible and captivating book, Naím offers a revolutionary look at the inevitable end of power—and shows how it will change your world.


We All Pay Higher Tax Rates Than The Rich: A Lesson In Class Warfare

$
0
0

1910 Income Tax Promised To Never Shift Burden From Richest 1 - 4%

U Mass Professor Emeritus Richard Wolff Provides Out-Of-The-Box Views

http://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2015/01/u-mass-professor-emeritus-richard-wolff.html

"Politics And Economics: The 101 Courses You Wish You Had"

"Plutocracy Triumphant"
Cartoon Compendium

"War, Peace And Political Manipulation: Quotations"

"Pope Francis Links"

We All Pay Higher Tax Rates Than The Rich: A Lesson In Class Warfare

Not that this should be entirely shocking but this should end the debate about how is getting fleeced and who carries the burden in society. And it's useful to have this handy to dispatch to the usual class warfare deniers.

Into my mailbox came two exhaustive pieces of research--you know, those weird things that use FACTS (how quaint)--about who pays taxes. The first is a national study, the second focuses on New York (I know, I'm provincial).
First to the exhaustive state-by-state study Who Pays? by the Institute on Taxation & Economic Policy
Key piece in intro:
Economists have widely discredited trickle-down economic theories espoused for more than three decades, but that hasn’t stopped new generations of supply-side theorists from repackaging those philosophies and pushing for lower state tax rates for wealthy individuals, businesses and corporations. In fact, recent years have brought tax proposals and changes in multiple states that would overwhelmingly benefit the highest income households under the guise of stimulating economic growth. This report doesn’t seek to rebut ideological claims; rather it is an in-depth analysis of all taxes that all people pay at the state and local level.
This study assesses the fairness of each state’s tax system by measuring state and local taxes paid by non-elderly taxpayers in different income groups in 2015 as shares of income for every state and the District of Columbia. The report provides valuable comparisons among the states, showing which states have done the best — and the worst — job of providing a modicum of fairness in their overall tax systems. The Tax Inequality Index (Appendix B) measures the effects of each state’s tax system on income inequality and is used to rank the states from the most regressive to the least regressive.
The bottom line is that every state fails the basic test of tax fairnessThe District of Columbia is the only tax system that requires its best-off citizens to pay as much of their incomes in state and local taxes as the very poorest taxpayers, but middle-income taxpayers in DC pay far more than the top one percent. In other words, every single state and local tax system is regressive and even the states that do better than others have much room for improvement[emphasis added]
.
So, that is the top-line message. And, along with the war against wages in the workplace (principally, the attacks against unions), this is THE TOOL used to prosecute broad class warfare: whatever services are left in society after the political establishment slashes and burns our basic social network (often in the name of the stupid obsession over "deficit reduction") are paid for disproportionately by the very workers getting hammered in their pocketbooks at work.
Take an ugly bow:
Ten states —Washington, Florida, Texas, South Dakota, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Arizona, Kansas, and Indiana— are particularly regressive. These “Terrible Ten” states tax their poorest residents— those in the bottom 20 percent of the income scale — at rates up to seven times higher than the wealthy. Middle-income families in these states pay a rate up to three times higher as a share of their income as the wealthiest families.
It is worth noting that a majority of the states have been largely run by Republicans governors and/or barely Democratic governors and/or legislatures run by Republicans. And, so, one can assume that, as the statehouse picture has gotten even darker in the wake of the last election, that more states will vie for a place among the "Terrible Ten".
What makes a state so terrible?:
• Four of the ten states do not levy a personal income tax — Florida, South Dakota, Texas, and Washington. An additional state, Tennessee, only applies its personal income tax to interest and dividend income.
•Five states do levy personal income taxes, but have structured them in a way that makes them much less progressive than in other states. Pennsylvania , Illinois and Indiana use a flat rate which taxes the income of the wealthiest family at the same marginal rate as the poorest wage earner. Arizona has a graduated rate structure, however there is little difference between the bottom marginal rate and top marginal rate. Kansas’ graduated rate structure only has two brackets, applying the top rate starting at $30,000 for married
couples.
• Six of the ten most regressive tax systems — those of Washington, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Arizona and Florida — rely very heavily on regressive sales and excise taxes. These states derive roughly half to two-thirds of their tax revenue from these taxes, compared to the national average of 34 percent in fiscal year 2011-2012.
Bernie Sanders, take a proud bow for your state:
Vermont’s tax system is among the least regressive in the nation because it has a highly progressive income tax and low sales and excise taxes. Vermont’s tax system is also made less unfair by the size of the state’s refundable Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) — 32 percent of the federal credit.
Why is this bad economically?:
The vast majority of states allow their very best-off residents to pay much lower effective tax rates than their middle- and low-income families must pay — so when the richest taxpayers grow even richer, these exploding incomes hardly make a ripple in state tax collections. And when the same states see incomes stagnate or even decline at the bottom of the income distribution it has a palpable, devastating effect on state revenue. A recent Standard & Poor’s report found that the more income growth goes to the wealthy and
incomes stagnate or decline at the bottom, the slower a state’s revenue grows, especially if the state relies more heavily on taxes that disproportionately fall on low- and middle-income households. Hitching your state’s funding of investments to those with a shrinking share income is not a path to a sustainable, growing revenue stream.
Moreover, shrinking revenues and overreliance on regressive taxes prevent states from investing in the priorities that will bolster the prospects of low- and middle-income residents: education, workforce development, infrastructure improvements, and adequate healthcare. State tax structures that rely on trickle-down theories of economic growth, balance budgets on the backs of working families rather than asking the wealthy to do more, and fail to improve the wellbeing of the majority of that state’s residents will fail to be competitive in the long run. Shortsighted tax cuts can be a long-term drag on development. [emphasis added]
The above two paragraphs seem obvious to the rationale person. It is a measure of ideological blindness that such an obvious economic point is ignored, willfully, and, thus, it means all this rhetoric about competitiveness is, well, rhetoric.
It's worth reading the rest. Here's a pretty cool feature: you can go here and check out your own state.
I also got a great report from the Fiscal Policy Institute Report just on New York. I'll just highlight, for the sake of brevity, just two pieces.
On New York's income tax burden on regular people:
Looked at another way, the top one percent in the city—tax filers with incomes over
$600,000—received 35 percent of all income in 2011 but paid only 27 percent of local taxes. The first four income quintiles—the “bottom 80 percent” with incomes under $71,000—paid a greater share of city taxes than their share of income. This disparity reflects the regressivity of sales and property taxes and the fact that rental properties
(lower-income households are much more likely to rent) bear a much higher effective property tax than do owner-occupied housing.
The biggest contribution to the national argument come swhen FPI blows up--again--the canard that higher taxes on business and the wealthy drive away jobs and rich people. Nonsense:
In his recent review of the literature on the relationship of state and local taxes to interstate migration, state tax policy expert Michael Mazerov noted:
The vast majority of academic research using sophisticated statistical techniques concludes that differences in state tax systems and levels do not have a significant impact on interstate migration. Seven economists (or groups of economists) have published studies on state taxes and migration in peer review economics journals since 2000. Six of the seven studies concluded that taxes do not drive interstate moves. Eight additional studies... that were not published in academic journals have been released in the same period; six of the eight found either that state income taxes had no effect on migration or that the effect was small and inconsistent.
Based on his extensive review of the latest literature and his own analysis of IRS data on
interstate migration, Mazerov concluded:
Differences in tax levels among states have little to no effect on whether and where people move, contrary to claims by some conservative economists and elected officials. For decades, Americans have been moving away from the Northeast, the industrial Midwest, and the Great Plains to most of the southern and southwestern states regardless of overall tax levels or the presence of anincome tax in any of these states. They’ve moved in large part for employment opportunities in the Sunbelt states and, secondarily, for less expensive housing, and, for many retirees, a warmer, snow free climate.
[emphasis added]



The above saying is not correctly attributable to Marx but it hits the right note.

  • Often attributed to Lenin or Stalin, less often to Marx. According to the book, "They Never Said It", p. 64, the phrase derives from a rumour that Lenin said this to one of his close associates, Grigori Zinoviev, not long after a meeting of the Politburo in the early 1920s, but there is no evidence that he ever did. Experts on the Soviet Union reject the rope quote as spurious.





Viewing all 30150 articles
Browse latest View live