Friday, March 28, 2014


News Clips For The Day


U.S. and Europe Need a New Rulebook for Russia: Baltic Leader – NBC
First published March 28 2014

The United States and Europe need a new rulebook to deal with Vladimir Putin, according to the leader of one of the Baltic countries on Russia's doorstep.

Writing an op-ed in the Washington Post Friday, Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves said that Russia's annexation of Crimea signaled that the post-Cold War order had "collapsed."

"International treaties no longer hold, and the use of raw force is again legitimate," he said. "In its annexation of Crimea, Russia has thrown the rulebook out the window."

He called on NATO countries to "act decisively" and "get back in business," ensuring a presence within all member states.

The Estonian leader also said that Russia's actions in Crimea cannot be allowed to become a "cost-free successes" for Moscow, and that Western states should pledge "political support, economic assistance and practical know-how" to the rest of Ukraine.

"The lights of liberty are being extinguished in parts of Europe," he wrote. "We must take decisive and united steps to ensure that future generations do not question why nothing was done and why we didn't act when so much was at stake."




"The lights of liberty are being extinguished....” Estonian President Toomas Hendrik Ilves calls for NATO to take “decisive and united” steps. I couldn't agree with him more. Russians, like most schoolyard bullies, will do whatever they can get away with. After all, they have never at any time during the last century espoused democratic government, freedom of speech, freedom of movement and the right to “pursue happiness.” They are right now cracking down on gays within their population and were as bad as Nazi Germany about persecuting the Jews. I thought up until this situation in Ukraine and Crimea occurred that Russia had given up its bad old ways and was being cooperative with the West. It turns out that is a highly conditional response on their part. I do want to see European nations back us up on making a strong front against them. After all, it is their freedom which is at stake. I would like to see articles about more Eastern and Central European countries saying the same things Ilves has said, and as soon as possible.




What’s the least valuable college degree in the U.S.?
By Aimee Picchi Money Watch March 27, 2014

With high school seniors and their families now deciding where to enroll for college next fall, they might want to take a gander at research showing the best -- and worst -- values for a degree.

The shocker in a survey by PayScale, a research firm that focuses on compensation, is that there are schools where students would have been better off not attending. Why? The 20-year net return on their college investment amounts to a financial loss, even when financial aid is included. Taking the time to get and spend money on a degree, in short, means you might actually find yourself in a financial hole.

The survey may add to parents' doubts about the value of a college degree, especially given that rising tuition costs have far outpaced the pace of inflation and the tough job market for some majors (think liberal arts). Those trends have saddled graduates with a combined $1 trillion in debt.

The worst off? Arts, humanities and education majors at more than a dozen institutions -- including respected school such as Ohio State University and Indiana University -- where the 20-year net return falls lower than -$100,000.

"With student loan debt spiraling out of control, it's more important than ever for prospective college students to be armed with information that will not only help them decide where and what to study but how much debt they can afford based on their likely career prospects," Lydia Frank, the editorial director of PayScale, wrote in a report about the findings.

The college offering the worst overall 20-year ROI is Shaw University, a private liberal arts school in Raleigh, N.C. A bachelor's degree from Shaw will set you back almost $81,000, which is less than many other colleges. But the 20-year ROI is a stunningly low -$121,000, according to PayScale

Shaw University said it found PayScale's methodology "seriously flawed." In an emailed statement, the university noted, "Their survey does not include the many Shaw alumni who earn substantial income as business owners or our graduates who later earned advanced degrees that could help increase their earning potential. Incredibly, PayScale makes no mention of their survey's sample size where respondents self-reported their income."

Another North Carolina college, Fayetteville State University, registered the second-worst return on a diploma, with graduates earning a 20-year ROI of -$95,700, PayScale notes.

To be sure, there are some caveats to keep in mind. PayScale is basing its estimates on self-reported income, which isn't always accurate. The study also doesn't consider the socioeconomic demographics for the schools or, for instance, how a college degree might change the projected 20-year earnings for student who comes from a low-income family. Without that degree, is it possible that student's 20-year earnings would have been even lower?

On the positive side, the schools with the strongest ROI were a mix of Ivy League names and the not-so-familiar, with Harvey Mudd College taking the No. 1 spot. Its students can expect a 20-year net ROI of almost $1.1 million. Harvey Mudd, while not a household name, focuses on so-called STEM topics, or science, technology engineering and mathematics.

That's a common theme among the colleges that offer the biggest bang for the buck. MIT, known for alumni including Apollo 11 astronaut Buzz Aldrin and former Federal Reserve Bank Chairman Ben Bernanke, was No. 2 on PayScale's list, with a 20-year ROI of $973,700. Caltech -- the workplace setting for CBS' "The Big Bang Theory" -- is in third place, with a 20-year ROI of $968,500.




The article says that current costs “may add to parents' doubts about the value of a college degree,” and I have to agree. Some kind of technical training might be better for many people. I went through when it didn't cost so much. I will never be sorry I took the liberal arts coursework that I did, because that was my main interest area at the time, and I got a number of social science courses as well. It gave me a much better background of knowledge than I would have had if I hadn't attended. It also forced me to upgrade my vocabulary so that I can read non-fiction works on subjects that interest me, thereby continuing to learn as I grow older.

I do not think, however, that my English Lit major has really improved my employability, unless it was to make me seem “brighter” to some employers. I really should have majored in something like psychology, which is one of my main interest areas now. Anthropology also would have been good. They both point toward different employment areas than merely some form of office work or teaching. I could have worked in a laboratory or, if I majored in anthropology, studied the cultures in Third World countries, maybe working for the World Bank or other such organization. I thoroughly enjoyed my English Lit coursework, but it wasn't as practical as journalism would have been, for instance. At this point I accept my life as it has been, however, and continue forward as I can. I do think that young people who want to pursue higher learning should look closely at what jobs they want to qualify for and choose their coursework accordingly. If they can avoid heavy student loans it would be better.




What's behind Americans' negative attitude toward Obama on Ukraine?
By Fred Backus CBS News March 28, 2014

As the Obama administration responds to Russia's annexation of Crimea from Ukraine, the latest CBS News Poll shows that more Americans disapprove (46 percent) than approve (38 percent) of the way President Obama is handling the situation between the two countries. But when looking more closely at the public's views on the Crimean situation, the negative attitude toward the president handling of the situation raises questions.

Fifty-six percent of Americans approve of the sanctions enacted against Russia by the U.S. and other European countries, the first concrete action the Obama administration has taken in response the annexation. Nor does it seem most Americans think the Obama administration should take some other more aggressive steps - 65 percent of Americans do not think the U.S. should provide military aid and weapons to Ukraine. What's more, majorities of Americans think the situation in Crimea is both beyond the control of the U.S. (57 percent) and that the U.S. does not have responsibility to do something about it (61 percent). What, then, do Americans disapprove of, and why?

Although Americans tend to pay less attention and have less knowledge of events overseas than domestic concerns, lack of knowledge does not seem to be the main factor. Sixty-nine percent of Americans have heard or read at least something about the situation between Russia and the Ukraine, including more than a third who say they have heard or read a lot (36 percent). More importantly, those who have heard or read a lot about the situation are more likely (56 percent) to disapprove of the president's handling of the situation than Americans overall (46 percent).

Not surprisingly, partisanship probably plays a role. There is a clear break along party lines when it comes to how the president is handling the situation between Russia and Ukraine: 59 percent of Democrats approve of Mr. Obama's handling of the situation, while 69 percent of Republicans disapprove. But more independents also disapprove (48 percent) than approve (35 percent) of the president's handling of the situation between Russia and Ukraine, so party identification is not the only factor.

Disapproval of the president's handling of the situation between Russia and Ukraine may also be a reflection of disapproval of his overall job performance. In the same poll, 50 percent of Americans said they disapprove of the job Barack Obama is doing as president, while just 43 percent approve. Americans have held a net negative rating of Mr. Obama's job performance since September of last year, and they similarly express a net negative view of his handling of the economy, health care, immigration, Afghanistan, and foreign policy in general.

In fact, the only measure in the most recent CBS News Poll that Americans approve of is his handling of terrorism (53 percent approve). Reaction to the president's handling of the situation between Russia and Ukraine is likely part of this overall trend.

But there may be another factor as well: American pessimism about the scope of U.S. power and its standing in the world. Fifty-nine percent of Americans think the U.S. is less powerful as a world leader than it was 10 years ago, and the percentage that thinks that the United States' image in the world has gotten better since Mr. Obama became president has been declining steadily - from 59 percent in April 2009 to just 32 percent today. This pessimism can perhaps be seen in Americans' views of sanctions against Russia: while 56 percent approve of sanctions, 58 percent don't think those sanctions will be very effective.

How Americans view America's power as a world leader is directly related to how they feel about Russia and Ukraine: Most Americans who think that U.S. power has increased in the past year both approve of Mr. Obama's handling of the situation between Russia and Ukraine (58 percent) and think the U.S. can do something about it (53 percent). In contrast, most Americans who think U.S. power has declined both highly disapprove of Mr. Obama's handling of the situation (63 percent) and think the situation is beyond the control of the U.S. (61 percent).

For many Americans, their disapproval of the president's handling of the situation between Russia and Ukraine may not from an unwillingness to do more, but because they don't think that he has the power to do anything about it.




I am surprised that 65% of Americans think we should not provide military aid to Ukraine or that 61% think we have no “responsibility” to intervene. After all, providing military aid doesn't necessarily mean sending in soldiers. Those numbers sound like they include Republicans as well as Democrats, too, or they wouldn't be that high. I expect Democrats to be “dovish,” but not Republicans. I've seen numbers like that before, though, in particular when Rwanda was engulfed in genocidal turmoil. I think many people in the US are comfortable in our relative safety here and willingly choose to avoid upsetting that balance by playing guardian to the world's downtrodden. There is also the fact that our economy is still weak from the recession and even a limited war effort will cost billions of dollars. Besides we are still involved in Afghanistan.

Maybe it's because I grew up in the aftermath of World War II and the Cold War, but I think we do owe allegiance to Western democracy where it is threatened, now as we did then. It is truly our way of life that is at stake. It is possible for the forces of good government to be overwhelmed by power hungry and totalitarian societies, large and small. Germany and the other fascist states almost did that. We mustn't become complacent about it in today's world.

I think, from the figures mentioned in this article, that many people in the US lack the impulse to help others if they seem to be only a minor part of our world scene, and want to take the easier way out – to let them go under if they can't fight for themselves. We need smaller players as well as our major allies on the side of free and peace-loving peoples. That is the way to build world peace, it seems to me – one country at a time.





3,000-year-old skeleton found riddled with cancer
CBS News March 28, 2014

When archeologist Michaela Binder dug through a tomb of skeletons in Sudan, in northeastern Africa, she found one that looked different.

The PhD student from Durham University in England unearthed bones infested with lesions and holes. Right away, she suspected cancer.

"At first, I wasn't sure if this is actually a disease because we have a lot of termites in the area, who tend to eat bones or tend to make a lot of small holes in the bones," she told CBS News' Alphonso Van Marsh.

Scientists in the archaeology lab at the British Museum used x-rays and high-powered microscopes to confirm the skeleton's cancer.

"This represents the earliest and most complete skeleton of this type of cancer," said Daniel Antoine, the museum's curator of physical anthropology. Only three other examples have ever been found of malignant cancer deaths dating before the year 1000 B.C., LiveScience reports.

Antoine worked with Binder to examine the remains. They determined the man died of metastatic cancer that started in an organ and spread to his bones. They estimate he was between 25 and 35 years old when he died.

Today, cancer is one of the world's leading causes of death, often considered a byproduct of modern living linked to diet, pollution, smoking, and increased longevity. The 3,000-year-old skeleton provides new evidence that the disease has been killing humans since antiquity.

Researchers say the discovery will help to provide insight into cancer's evolution. They explain that if archaeologists can find more ancient remains with cancer, they could better understand how the disease has changed over time.

For now, they do not know exactly how the cancer formed, but speculate that it may have had something to do with smoke from wood fires, bad genes, or an infectious disease.




“Only three other examples have ever been found of malignant cancer deaths dating before the year 1000 B.C., LiveScience reports.” So maybe cancer is a fairly new disease. Or, on the other hand, it always was a rare disease and we find so few skeletons from such an early period that those we do find can't be expected to reflect all the causes of death that were existent at the time. This article does mention that many people suspect that the high incidence of cancer in today's world is due to environmental causes and, surprisingly, to our modern longevity. In other words, in prehistoric times there were probably more early deaths such as violent deaths, heart attacks, or even things like malnutrition and infectious diseases, while cancer tends to develop in later life.

It was interesting that Binder said she first suspected termites as the cause of the holes. I had no idea that termites ate anything except wood. This was a good article, but it's a bit short. I would like to have seen some more information, maybe about the culture she was examining. So be it. Archaeologists most often don't have much information in their finds. After thousands of years there is little left at the site to find.





Obama seeks to reassure Saudi King Abdullah on Iran, Syria
CBS/AP March 28, 2014

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia -- President Barack Obama paid a visit Friday to the desert oasis of wary ally King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia, hoping to reassure the aging monarch who is nervously watching Washington's negotiations with Iran and other U.S. policy in the Middle East.

Obama's Marine One helicopter kicked up clouds of sand in his arrival at the king's desert camp outside the capital of Riyadh for a meeting and dinner with Abdullah. The president walked through a row of military guards to an ornate room featuring a massive crystal chandelier and took a seat next to the 89-year-old king, who was breathing with the help of an oxygen tank.

Secretary of State John Kerry sat at Obama's side for the visit that is the president's third official meeting with the king in six years.

Despite its decades-long alliance with the United States, Saudi's royal family has become increasingly anxious in recent years over Obama's nuclear talks with Iran and his tepid involvement in the Syrian civil war. During his evening meetings with the king, Obama's task was to reassure Saudi Arabia that the U.S. is not abandoning Arab interests despite troop withdrawals from Iraq and Afghanistan, greater energy independence back home and nuclear talks with predominantly Persian Iran.

White House officials and Mideast experts say the Saudi royal family's main concern is Iran. They fear Iran's nuclear program, object to Iran's backing of the Bashar Assad regime in Syria and see the government of Tehran as having designs on oil fields in Saudi Arabia and Bahrain.

Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes told reporters aboard Air Force One on the flight to Saudi Arabia that the issues at the heart of Obama's meetings with Abdullah include Gulf security, Middle East peace, Syria, Iran and Egypt.
On Syria, Rhodes said Obama did not plan to make any specific announcements about additional assistance to opposition forces. He said the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have been working together closely to coordinate their assistance to the rebels.

Rhodes said that coordination has helped put the U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia "in a stronger place today than it was in the fall when we had some tactical differences about our Syria policy."

"We are in a better place today than we were seven months ago," Rhodes said.
Obama angered Saudi officials by scrapping plans to launch a military strike against Syria, choosing instead to back a plan to strip Syrian President Bashar Assad of his chemical weapons.

Still, in a move that could smooth over the disagreement between the two countries, the Obama administration is considering allowing shipments of new air defense systems known as "manpads" to Syrian rebels, a U.S. official said Friday.

Allowing manpads to be delivered to Syrian rebels would mark a shift in strategy for the U.S., which until this point has limited its lethal assistance to small weapons and ammunition, as well as humanitarian aid. The U.S. has been grappling for ways to boost the rebels, who have lost ground in recent months, allowing Syrian President Bashar Assad to regain a tighter grip on the war-torn nation.

The actual manpad shipments could come from the Saudis, who have so far held off sending in the equipment because of U.S. opposition.

The president is not expected to announce a final decision on the matter during his overnight trip to the Gulf kingdom. U.S. and Saudi intelligence officials have been discussing the possibility of injecting manpads into the crisis for some time, including during a meeting in Washington earlier this year.

As recently as February, the administration had said Obama remained opposed to any shipments of manpads to the Syrian opposition. The U.S. has been concerned that the weaponry could fall into the wrong hands and possibly be used to shoot down a commercial airliner.

Among the reasons for Obama's shift in thinking is the greater understanding the U.S. now has about the composition of the Syrian rebels, the official said. However, the official added, the president continues to have concerns about escalating the fire power on the ground in Syria, which has been torn apart by more than three years of civil war.

The official wasn't authorized to discuss the internal deliberations by name and insisted on anonymity.

Rhodes said Obama would also update the king on the nuclear talks with Iran. He said Obama would also make the point that those negotiations do not mean U.S. concerns about other Iranian activities have lessened, including its support for Assad and Hezbollah, as well as its destabilizing activity in Yemen and the Gulf.

"Those concerns remain constant and we're not in any way negotiating those issues in the nuclear talks," he said.

Rhodes said human rights, including women's rights, would be on the agenda for Obama's meetings. But he said the U.S. has a broad range of security interests with Saudi Arabia that would be most prominent on the agenda.

"We've raised concerns around human rights issues, issues related to women's rights," Rhodes said, adding that the U.S. has to maintain "the ability to cooperate" with the Saudis on other issues.

The Saudi anxieties have been building over time, according to Simon Henderson, a fellow at The Washington Institute, a think tank focused on Middle East policy.
"Ever since Washington withdrew support for President (Hosni) Mubarak of Egypt in 2011, Abdullah and other Gulf leaders have worried about the reliability of Washington's posture toward even longstanding allies," Henderson wrote this week. "President Obama's U-turn on military action against Syria over its use of chemical weapons last summer only added to the concern, which has likely morphed into exasperation after recent events in Crimea, where the Saudis judge that President Obama was outmaneuvered by Vladimir Putin."

The technological advances that have increased oil and gas production in the United States have also made Gulf states nervous, said Tamara Cofman Wittes, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and director of its Saban Center on Middle East Policy
"A lot of people in the region, I think, are naturally asking themselves what America's energy independence means for America's willingness to invest in the security of energy and supply from the Gulf," she said.

Friday's talks also come in the aftermath of Saudi Arabia's refusal to grant a visa to the Washington bureau chief of The Jerusalem Post who had sought to cover Obama's trip. Rhodes told reporters that the U.S. government reached out to Riyadh to intervene but to no avail.




Obama's visit to “wary ally King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia” is to assure him that the US is not abandoning “Arab interests.” I have a tendency to think that everybody in the Middle East are, in one way or another, Arabs. No. Iran is Persian and is a rival of Saudi Arabia, so our involvement with Iran over reducing their nuclear program is suspicious to King Abdullah.

He also is no longer as trusting about our loyalty to Saudi Arabia, along with some other Middle Eastern allies, who saw the US' withdrawal of support for Mubarak as a sign that we are no longer reliable. Our emphasis on developing more of our own oil resources is also suspect, along with our stance on Saudi Arabia's policy toward women. They are modern in some ways, but not in that instance. So far, unless it has changed in the last couple of months, women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to drive cars. I assume there are other restrictions on them, too.

The truth is that culturally the West is very different from the Middle East in general, and we are all involved in a struggle for power because of the presence of the oil reserves there. It's an unstable and dangerous place. World relationships are not in most places as stable as they are between the present-day Western European powers, and even that is a temporary condition. The year 1945 ended a huge struggle over land, dominance and freedom of religion, with the West coming close to being overtaken by Hitler. There are still groups in Europe and the US that hate Jews and blacks, and you sometimes hear of a quarrel between European countries over some piece of land that is in dispute. I will probably never feel really safe when I view these problems, as they don't go away. They just get better from time to time. I hope we can keep a strong country like Saudi Arabia on our side, and come to smoother relationships in general over there. I'm like Rodney King. I want us all to get along.




Obamacare hits enrollment target - sort of
CBS/AP March 27, 2014


WASHINGTON - Back on track after a stumbling start, President Barack Obama's health care overhaul reached a milestone Thursday, with more than 6 million Americans signed up for coverage through new insurance markets.

Obamacare deadline extension
Paige Winfield Cunningham, Health Care Reporter for POLITICO, discusses who will be eligible for an extension to sign up for health insurance.

The announcement - four days before open enrollment season ends Monday - fulfills a revised goal set by the Congressional Budget Office and embraced by the White House.

Like much else about Obama's health care law, it comes with a caveat: The administration has yet to announce how many consumers actually closed the deal by paying their first month's premium. Some independent estimates are that as many as 10 percent to 20 percent have not paid, which would bring the total enrollment to between 5 million and 6 million people.

The White House said the president made the announcement during an international conference call with enrollment counselors and volunteers, while traveling in Italy. Administration officials, focused on signing up even more people over the weekend, played down the occasion. Others said it was unmistakably a promising sign.

"I think the program is finally starting to hit its stride in terms of reaching the enrollment goals the administration set," said John Rother, CEO of the National Coalition on Health Care, a nonpartisan coalition of businesses, health care industry groups and consumer organizations. "It still has a ways to go in terms of achieving public acceptance."

To put the 6 million sign-ups in perspective, consider that the HealthCare.gov website didn't work when it was launched in October. Millions of people trying to access online marketplace exchanges that offer subsidized private insurance were met with frozen screens. Nonetheless, the administration's achievement is still short of the original target of covering 7 million people through the exchanges.

Several million more people have gained coverage through Medicaid. That safety net program was also expanded under the law, but only about half of states have gone along.

Nonetheless, ongoing measurements by Gallup show that the number of Americans without coverage has been slowly dropping since coverage under the law took effect in January.
Monday is the deadline to enroll in the new insurance exchanges, but potentially millions of people will still be able to take advantage of extensions announced this week.

Although the national number is important, what really counts is state-by-state enrollment. That's because each state is a separate insurance market. To help keep premium increases in check, each state market must have a balance between young and old, healthy and sick.

"The national number only gets us so far," said Caroline Pearson, who is tracking the rollout for the market analysis firm Avalere Health. "The fair measure of success is whether you have set up a market that is sustainable into the future. So you can then go out and find the rest of the uninsured people, and bring them in over the next couple of years."

As of just a couple of few weeks ago, it seemed like it would take a miracle of sorts for the administration to hit the 6 million mark. Enrollment in February was lackluster. But this week especially has seen a resurgence of consumer interest with the enrollment deadline approaching. The administration said HealthCare.gov got 1.5 million visits on Wednesday.

Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius has been traveling constantly to promote sign-ups. Obama himself joined in reaching out to Hispanics, a large and relatively young population that has been sitting on the sidelines.

Achieving the 6 million level was a relief to congressional Democrats. The law remains unpopular with the public, and Republicans are making its repeal their rallying cry in the upcoming midterm elections.

"The Affordable Care Act is working," House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California said in a statement. "Republicans should abandon their reckless pursuit of new milestones in the number of votes to repeal or undermine this historic law."
The GOP-led House has voted more than 50 times to repeal, defund or scale back the law.

Celebrations are premature, suggested market analyst Pearson, who cited the uncertainty over how many people have actually secured coverage by paying their premiums.

"It matters politically," she said. "It doesn't matter from a market perspective."




“...it comes with a caveat: The administration has yet to announce how many consumers actually closed the deal by paying their first month's premium.” I feel sure they will, though. I doubt that many people would go to the effort of signing up without intending to pay. This article mentions that some millions of people are covered through the extension of Medicaid, though “only about half of the states have gone along.” The most discouraging comment in here is that the GOP lead House has voted more than 50 times to repeal or defund the law. Is that mainly the Tea Party group, I wonder, or mainstream Republicans, too? If they've voted 50 times and still not won the vote, they must be outnumbered. I'm not terribly worried.