Sunday, May 18, 2014


News Clips For The Day


Meet Nigel Farage, the Lawmaker Who Wants Britain Out of the EU – NBC
BY ALASTAIR JAMIESON
First published May 16th 2014

LONDON - He holds news conferences in pubs, wants to pull Britain out of the European Union and his anti-big government stance has attracted comparisons to the Tea Party.

Charismatic lawmaker Nigel Farage's U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) says Britain is better off without Europe’s Brussels-based political projects and seeks tough curbs on immigration and an end to subsidies for green energy.

The party has long been considered part of the political fringe: before being elected prime minister, David Cameron once dismissed UKIP's supporters as "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists."

But surfing on a tide of public resentment at the main political parties, Farage's controversial right-wing “patriotic party” appears to be days away from a historic victory at the ballot box that could reshape next year’s general election.

On Thursday, voters will choose local representatives and its members of the European Parliament in a poll that will take the political temperature of the nation in a way similar to the mid-term elections in the U.S.

Challenging traditional parties

A recent ITV News/ComRes opinion poll put Farage’s UKIP well ahead of the other parties in the European race, with 38 percent of voters saying they would cast their ballot for the party, compared to 27 percent for Labour, 18 percent for the Conservatives and 8 percent for the Liberal Democrats.

UKIP’s populist agenda has struck a chord in a country struggling through with the slowest post-recession recovery in modern history, where many blame unemployment on the immigration boom of the 2000s.

"He has to show that he is a legitimate actor, that he is not a bigot or a racist. He deals with that very well"

“Especially among older voters you hear that phrase ‘I don’t recognize my own country any more’ and that’s a sentiment captured by UKIP,” said John Curtice, professor of politics at the University of Strathclyde in Glasgow.

Britain next year will choose a new government in which Cameron’s Conservative party is seeking a majority after a term in a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.

The Conservatives' traditional main opponent is the Labour Party, which recently hired Obama campaign strategist David Axelrod as an adviser. But with dissatisfaction with all the main political parties at an all-time high, support for UKIP is surging.

“2015 is already shaping up to be the most unpredictable British general election in 40 years,” said Rob Ford, a politics lecturer at the University of Manchester and author of "Revolt on the Right" about right-wing politics in Britain.

But translating success from the proportional representation system of the European parliament into the constituency-based first-past-the-post voting system of Britain’s general election will be an enormous task for Farage, even with political momentum in his favor. His party already has 12 members of the European parliament – including Farage - and dozens of local councillors across England - but not a single representative in Britain’s parliament at Westminster.

“Winning the European election would be very symbolic – but no more than that,” said Ford. “On current predictions it would still probably get only one or two seats at the general election, most likely Farage himself if he stood for a constituency.”

Harnessing that momentum is a challenge relished by Farage, a former commodities trader who left a highly paid career in London’s financial district to become the ubiquitous public face of UKIP.

“Traditionally, mid-term protest votes have gone from the Conservatives and Labour to the Liberal Democrats,” Curtice said. ”But the Liberal Democrats have been in a power-sharing coalition with the Conservatives since 2010, so they are no longer the party of protest and that role has fallen to UKIP.”

The British Election Study – a joint academic research project on voting behavior – believes Farage may be able to retain his mid-term popularity, and predicts UKIP will attract 11 percent of the total vote in the general election, up from 3 percent in 2010.

“A good result for UKIP in the European Parliament elections is a blow for the three major parties, but the major parties traditionally take comfort in the likelihood that a UKIP European Parliament election swing will not be replicated come the next general election,” it said in a study published last week that suggests “such comforts may now be misplaced.”

The party’s grass-roots character, and its support base of members angry at issues such as immigration and gay marriage, may also prove to be its Achilles heel. Its increased media profile has shone a light into some dark corners, and Farage has been forced into repeated apologies for off-color or racist remarks and blunders by party co-workers.

Last year one of its European parliament members derided foreign aid to Africa as “money for Bongo Bongo land” and called a roomful of female supporters “sluts” at the party’s annual conference. In January, one of its councilors said winter storms were God’s wrath for the Conservative government's legalization of same-sex marriage and two weeks ago a major donor said women should only be allowed to wear skirts.

While such viewpoints alienate some voters, they only seem to consolidate the party’s core support - and Farage has been quick to distance the party from the most extremist views.

“Like many leaders on the radical right, Farage has to do a dance to campaign on visceral, emotive issues but stay on the right side of the line and not cross into open racism,” Ford said. “He has to show that he is a legitimate actor, that he is not a bigot or a racist. He deals with that very well.”

"There are a lot of older, blue-collar voters who feel that the way society is changing is pushing them to the margin"

Farage’s upbeat, affable nature - and his trademark ordinary-guy-in-a-bar persona – has saved UKIP from many sticky political situations. But its core mission – to free Britain from the yoke of European Union membership, which it claims costs the U.K. a net $100 million a day – may no longer be its most popular policy.

“This is what we call the Farage paradox,” said Mats Persson, director of think tank Open Europe. “While support for UKIP has risen in the polls, support for Britain remaining in the E.U. has actually risen.”

In Britain – as in Germany, among others - a clear plurality of voters feel that national parliaments should act as the ultimate check on European laws rather than the European parliament as at present. But most voters broadly support Cameron’s policy of negotiating a better deal in the current setup rather than complete E.U. Withdrawal.

And, above all, constitutional reform is not a hot topic in national elections where jobs, health care and the economy are still the deciding issues. “People don’t riot in the streets about constitutional reform … except perhaps in parts of southern Europe,” said Persson.

Older supporters who vote

So what lies behind the popularity of UKIP, whose rise seems unstoppable in towns and cities away from London?

“UKIP has been compared to the Tea Party. It is right wing, anti-big government and its supporters feels alienated by the main parties," Ford said. "But that’s really where the similarities end – for example, there’s no major religious thread to British politics in the same way as there is in America.”

He added: “It’s not really about Farage’s personality or even about Europe, but there are a lot of older, blue-collar voters who feel that the way society is changing is pushing them to the margin. They feel that current politics does not speak to them and will not solve their problems. And unlike younger people, they tend to vote.”




“The party has long been considered part of the political fringe: before being elected prime minister, David Cameron once dismissed UKIP's supporters as 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists.'” Yet today a poll put UKIP at 38%, the top position of all the UK political parties. “UKIP’s populist agenda has struck a chord in a country struggling through with the slowest post-recession recovery in modern history, where many blame unemployment on the immigration boom of the 2000s.” UKIP sees Britain “without Europe’s Brussels-based political projects and seeks tough curbs on immigration and an end to subsidies for green energy.”

I see an anti-immigration vote as being the typical bigoted and/or racist component in all populations, but the ending of subsidies for green energy looks more like typical big-business interests and conservative religious views – as the article says, like the Tea Party. “The party’s grass-roots character, and its support base of members angry at issues such as immigration and gay marriage, may also prove to be its Achilles heel. Its increased media profile has shone a light into some dark corners, and Farage has been forced into repeated apologies for off-color or racist remarks and blunders by party co-workers.”

“Last year one of its European parliament members derided foreign aid to Africa as “money for Bongo Bongo land” and called a roomful of female supporters “sluts” at the party’s annual conference. In January, one of its councilors said winter storms were God’s wrath for the Conservative government's legalization of same-sex marriage and two weeks ago a major donor said women should only be allowed to wear skirts.”

Hearing this kind of talk in a country that I have always considered to be a bit more “civilized” than the USA, shows a familiar lack of Christian charity there among some, and probably a lack of liberal education. I wonder if Jews and blacks are being harassed there by citizens or even by the police. According to this article, though, the UKIP make up 38% of the population – that's almost half. Yet, “'While support for UKIP has risen in the polls, support for Britain remaining in the E.U. has actually risen.' ...constitutional reform is not a hot topic in national elections where jobs, health care and the economy are still the deciding issues.”

So what is behind the rise of the UKIP? The article states that they feel alienated from the other main parties. The UKIP is made up of “older, blue-collar voters who feel that the way society is changing is pushing them to the margin.... And unlike younger people, they tend to vote.” They are located outside London in smaller towns and cities.

Before World War II the Nazis in Germany rose to power partly due to economic problems, as we have today after the Great Recession. I think, among people who have never really reached out to “outsider” groups such as black people and Jews, the extra economic pressures cause fear and rancor to increase, and repression tends to occur as people look for scapegoats. I do hope Britain is not due to have such an uprising of negative thought and a new rise of racial hatred along with the UKIPs increased power. There have been reports of such in some other European countries in the last few years.




Egypt Court Jails More Than 160 Muslim Brotherhood Supporters – NBC
- Reuters
First published May 18th 2014

CAIRO - An Egyptian court jailed more than 160 Muslim Brotherhood supporters for up to 15 years in prison on Sunday, pressing a crackdown on the Islamist group before a presidential election former army chief Abdel Fattah al-Sisi is expected to win.

Defendants chanted "Down with military rule" as Judge Hassan Fareed handed down 10-year jail terms to 126 Brotherhood supporters accused of violence and membership of a terrorist group in one of the cases. A further 37 people received 15-year sentences in a second case related to an alleged attempt to blow up a Cairo metro station.

The security forces have detained thousands of Brotherhood supporters since the military deposed president Mohamed Mursi last July following mass protests against his rule.

expected to easily win the May 26-27 vote, has signaled there will be no reconciliation with the Brotherhood.

Brotherhood leader Mohamed Badie, who was among 683 people sentenced to death last month, made a rare address in court, rejecting the accusations leveled against his group.

"We have never responded to any attack against us with violence," said Badie, addressing the judge in footage uploaded to Youtube. The judiciary was being used in a political conflict the likes of which Egypt had never seen before, he said.

The government declared the Brotherhood a terrorist group after an upsurge in attacks on the police and army following Mursi's removal from power. Many of the attacks have been claimed by radical Islamist groups such as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis.

Mursi is one of many Brotherhood leaders now standing trial. He faces charges including conspiring with the Palestinian group Hamas against Egypt. Badie described that charge as "lies and falsehood."




A ten year sentence was given 126 members of the Muslim Brotherhood “accused of violence and membership of a terrorist group” with 37 getting 15 years each for an “attempt to blow up a Cairo metro station.” “Thousands” of members of the violent group have been detained “since the military deposed president Mohamed Mursi last July following mass protests against his rule” and 683 have been sentenced to death. Their leader Mohamed Badie said his group “has never responded to any attack against us with violence.” Mursi, the deposed Egyptian leader, is accursed of “conspiring with the Palestinian group Hamas against Egypt.”

This kind of massive roundup of political enemies has so far not happened in the US, but it is easy to see that the most “efficient” way to clear the streets of reportedly violent political groups is to do just that. The upcoming political election may elect Egyptian Defense Minister and Field Marshal General Abdel-Fattah El-Sisi  as President, who is a Jew, so his opposition to the Brotherhood is understandable. Still, such hardball tactics are the mark of a dictator, whether he is elected fairly or not. See http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/02/05/what-would-an-el-sisi-presidency-in-egypt-mean-for-israel/ for the origin of this information on Sisi.

The US prefers “stable” governments, even if they are less democratic, especially when such actors as radical Islamic parties are involved. The frequently aggressive Islamic parties do tend to bring with them guerrilla warfare, Sharia law, hatred of Jews and Christians, prohibitions on the education of women, terrorist actions, honor killings of women, genital mutilation of women and other things that Americans almost universally consider to be primitive, inhumane and grotesque. An Islamic person was quoted in one news article a few years ago as saying that Islam is “a religion of peace,” but in too many cases that seems to be simply untrue. Even the Koran has a passage in it in which Mohammed is quoted as exhorting his followers to “kill the unbelievers.”

So I, with some reservations, hope that Egypt's Sisi will be elected and the Muslim Brotherhood will be vanquished. Israel is a staunch ally to the US, despite its failure to make peace with Palestine, and until the Muslim Brotherhood took over in Egypt, it was also. I live in the US and would not want to be anywhere else. I am a political liberal on national issues, but more of a hawk where survival issues are involved, and a takeover of too much of the world by fundamentalist Islamists – which seems to be a work in progress – would be a definite survival issue for the US and for the freedom for which we stand.





Hillary Clinton's Health is 'Fair Game' in 2016, Says Republican Chairman – NBC
— Elisha Fieldstadt
First published May 18th 2014

Hillary Clinton's age and health status are "fair game" if she throws her hat into the race for the 2016 presidency, the Republican Party leader said Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press."

“I don’t think there’s a graceful way to bring up age, health and fitness for a candidate who wants to be president of the United States,” said Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus when asked about reports that Republican strategist Karl Rove claimed Clinton could have suffered brain damage from a blood clot two years ago.

"It was fair game for Ronald Reagan. It was fair game for John McCain," Priebus added.

Reagan took office in 1981 at age 69, and McCain was 72 on Election Day in 2008. Clinton is currently 66 years old.

Rove questioned Clinton's mental ability at a conference, the New York Post reported Monday. The GOP strategist on Tuesday denied that he used the phrase “brain damage” but reiterated that Clinton will have to answer questions about her “serious health episode.”

Priebus refused to say on Sunday that Rove should apologize for his statements.

Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who has already endorsed Clinton for president, called Rove's comments a "cheap political shot," implying the the GOP is afraid of Clinton as a candidate. McCaskill added that although "we do not know for certain whether Hillary is going to run," the comments of Republicans wouldn't be what stops her.

Priebus contested McCaskill's assertions. "I actually doubt very much that she will decide to run in 2016," he said.




Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus defends Rove when he “questioned Clinton's mental ability at a conference, the New York Post reported Monday. The GOP strategist on Tuesday denied that he used the phrase 'brain damage'” Democratic Senator McCaskill called Rove's comment a “cheap shot” and said that if Hillary Clinton decides not to run it won't be because of any Republican statements. Priebus stated that he doubts Clinton will try to run, actually.

They are trying to anger her and make her doubt herself with all those sly comments. I don't think that will work with Hillary Clinton. She is one tough cookie. I look forward to 2016 and hopefully voting for her. So far there is no other Democratic front runner.




Hope for the Honeybees? Experts Pitch Plan to Curb Deaths – NBC
BY ALAN BOYLE
First published May 14th 2014

The latest tally of honeybee colonies shows a lessening in deaths of the crucial pollinators — and suggests at least one way to keep bees healthier, researchers reported Thursday.

The annual report from the Bee Informed Partnership adds a new twist to the debate over the mysterious disappearance of honeybees, a phenomenon known as colony collapse disorder.

The fate of the bees is a huge issue because their pollinating role adds $15 billion to the value of U.S. crops, from almonds to zucchini. Bees and other pollinators play a role in producing a third of the world's foods and beverages. As a result, colony collapse disorder has spawned publicity campaigns and counter-campaigns, backed up on both sides by stacks of reports.

"Bees are the canary in the coal mine for our food system," said Lisa Archer, director of the food and technology program for Friends of the Earth U.S.

Some scientists blame a class of nerve-poisoning pesticides known as neonicotinoids — and that has resulted in a ban on their use in European countries. Just last week, a trio of researchers published a study claiming a strong link between the pesticides and colony collapse in healthy hives.

"We're really encouraging Congress to look at the science."

However, the Bee Informed survey of more than 7,000 beekeepers focused on a different threat to the bees: parasitic Varroa mites. The survey found that bee mortality was much lower for beekeepers who carefully treated their hives to control the mites.

"We think we could take a bite out of some of these losses if you control the mites properly," Dennis vanEngelsdorp, an entomologist at the University of Maryland and the director of the Bee Informed Partnership, told NBC News.

Complexities of colony collapse

In a report issued last year, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the Environmental Protection Administration said colony collapse disorder, or CCD, is the result of a combination of factors — including pesticides, mites, other parasites, viruses and even changes in land use. "A lot of land that used to support foraging sources for bees has been plowed under," vanEngelsdorp explained.

The toll on the honeybees varies widely from year to year: Over the past winter, beekeepers said they lost 23 percent of their bee colonies. That's much better than the 31 percent loss recorded for the winter of 2012-2013, or the 29 percent average loss for the eight-year history of the survey.

However, the losses were still above the levels that beekeepers regard as tolerable. About two-thirds of the beekeepers surveyed said their losses were beyond an acceptable level — a level that was set at 19 percent on average.

This year, for the first time, the survey also asked beekeepers about colony losses during the summer. That figure was a surprisingly high 20 percent.

"We used to think that winter was the critical period," vanEngelsdorp said in a news release. "But during our field studies, beekeepers told us they were also losing colonies in the summer months. So we expanded the survey and found that, in fact, colonies are dying all year round."

When vanEngelsdorp and his colleagues analyzed the subset of surveys from beekeepers who reported both summer and winter losses, they came up with a year-to-year average loss of 34 percent.

What is to be done?

The new reports set the stage for renewed debate over the causes of and the remedies for the bee die-off. Last week's study, published online in the Bulletin of Insectology, claimed that the use of two types of neonicotinoids heightened the risk to honeybee colonies over the winter, particularly during colder winters.

"Neonicotinoids are 'our new DDT' and should be banned from use until they have been demonstrated, independently and conclusively, to be safe for the environment and for human health."

The report provided ammunition for those who want to ban neonicotinoids in the United States, as the Europeans have done.

"Neonicotinoids are 'our new DDT' and should be banned from use until they have been demonstrated, independently and conclusively, to be safe for the environment and for human health," said Eric Chivian, who is a beekeeper as well as the founder and former director of the Center for Health and the Global Environment at Harvard Medical School.

Archer, the policy expert at Friends of the Earth, said she hoped the study would give a boost to a proposed ban currently under consideration in Congress. "We're really encouraging Congress to look at the science," she told NBC News.

However, other bee experts said the study had serious shortcomings — including small sample size, the lack of replication at each location, and the use of pesticide doses that were larger than bees would get under realistic field conditions. These researchers said more rigorous studies are needed to trace the causes of bee colony loss.

"I don't want to say neonicotinoids don't play a role, but I don't think they play as clear-cut a role as the paper suggests," vanEngelsdorp said.

The Bee Informed study focused on Varroa mites rather than pesticides because that was the factor mentioned most often by the beekeepers themselves. VanEngelsdorp said small-scale beekeepers in particular should be more diligent about using anti-mite treatments.

Such treatments do not involve neonicotinoids — in fact, they could be as harmless as powdered sugar. University of Illinois entomologist May Berenbaum said other options include using drone traps, because "the mites prefer drones"; or applying formic acid, a natural compound that kills mites.

"There are all kinds of alternatives to conventional synthetic pesticides for controlling mites," she told NBC News.

And that's just the beginning: VanEngelsdorp said he and his colleagues are learning more about why some colonies fail while others thrive, just by asking the beekeepers. "We're going through and looking at what combinations of treatment options the most successful beekeepers use," he said.

The Bee Informed Partnership survey was conducted with the Apiary Inspectors of America and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. VanEngelsdorp led a team of 11 researchers who conducted the survey. A total of 7,183 beekeepers, who collectively manage about 22 percent of the country's 2.6 million commercial honeybee colonies, took part. The Bee Informed Partnership receives a majority of its funding from USDA.

The study appearing in the Bulletin of Insectology, "Sub-lethal Exposure to Neonicotinoids Impaired Honey Bees Winterization Before Proceeding to Colony Collapse Disorder," was written by Chensheng (Alex) Lu of the Harvard School of Public Health and Kenneth Warchol and Richard Callahan of the Worcester County Beekeepers Association in Massachusetts.




“The latest tally of honeybee colonies shows a lessening in deaths of the crucial pollinators — and suggests at least one way to keep bees healthier, researchers reported Thursday.” A humorously named organization called the Bee Informed Partnership has issued a report on possible causes. “Some scientists blame a class of nerve-poisoning pesticides known as neonicotinoids — and that has resulted in a ban on their use in European countries. Just last week, a trio of researchers published a study claiming a strong link between the pesticides and colony collapse in healthy hives.”

Bee Informed survey of 7,000 beekeepers homed in on parasitic Varroa mites. “The survey found that bee mortality was much lower for beekeepers who carefully treated their hives to control the mites.” The USDA and EPA blamed “a variety” of causes, including changes in land use in which farmers have plowed under land that used to support bees foraging off wild flowers. This last winter's bee loss was 23%, an eight year low. According to beekeepers, an average of 19% is “acceptable.” Summer bee loss was tallied this year for the fist time and was found to be 20%, higher than expected and a year to year figure gleaned from previous years reports the scientists found a 34% average loss.

The report found that “two types of neonicotinoids heightened the risk to honeybee colonies over the winter, particularly during colder winters.” Europeans have already banned the chemicals and a move to ban them in the US may come soon. Eric Chivian, of Harvard Medical School considers them to be potentially dangerous to humans as well as to bees. VanEngelsdorp focuses on the mites more than on neonicotinoids, saying the beekeepers should use formic acid or a device called a “drone trap – because the drones carry the mites more than other bees – to combat mites. Those who favor avoiding neonicotinoids include Chensheng (Alex) Lu, Kenneth Warchol and Richard Callahan, co-authors of a study called “"Sub-lethal Exposure to Neonicotinoids Impaired Honey Bees Winterization Before Proceeding to Colony Collapse Disorder,'" so hopefully the chemicals will be banned. The following is from Wikipedia about the chemicals and their uses. It appears they are widely used by farmers at the current time in the US.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neonicotinoid

“Imidacloprid, a representative neonicotinoid, is effective against sucking insects, some chewing insects, soil insects, and is also used to control fleas on domestic animals.[28]

Imidacloprid is possibly the most widely used insecticide, both within the mode of action group and in the worldwide market. It is now applied against soil, seed, timber and animal pests as well as foliar treatments for crops including: cereals, cotton, grain, legumes, potatoes,[29] pome fruits, rice, turf and vegetables. It is systemic with particular efficacy against sucking insects and has a long residual activity. Imidacloprid can be added to the water used to irrigate plants. Controlled release formulations of imidacloprid take 2–10 days to release 50% of imidacloprid in water.[30]
The application rates for neonicotinoid insecticides are much lower than older, traditionally used insecticides.”




­

The Merits Of Income Inequality: What's The Right Amount? – NPR
by John Ydstie
May 18, 2014

Income inequality is a big problem, many economists agree. But they also say some level of inequality is necessary for capitalism to work.

Inequality in the U.S. has risen to levels not seen since the 1920s. The top 1 percent pocket more than 20 percent of the nation's income, and the 400 richest people in the country own more wealth than everyone in the bottom 50 percent.

That's not healthy for the society or the economy, says Branko Milanovic, an economists at the City University of New York Graduate Center. For one thing, he says, it undermines the idea of equal opportunity.

"It makes some people excluded or poor and unable to actually, for example, go to school, complete studies and contribute to society," he says.

That hurts individuals and, Milanovic says, it hurts the broader economy by not allowing a whole segment of society to be as productive as it could be.

French economist Thomas Piketty has warned in his best-seller Capital in the Twenty-First Century that inequality is likely to grow. That's because capitalism tends to reward the owners of capital with a greater and greater share of the economy's output, he says. Meanwhile, wage-earners get a smaller and smaller share.

Milanovic says that concentration of wealth is a threat to democracy. "The elites start dominating the political discourse and even political decision-making, and then they reinforce their own privilege," he says.

Still, Milanovic says some level of inequality is needed to make capitalism work.

"It provides incentives for harder work, study, investment and ... general desire to better one's condition and the condition of one's kids," he says.

But what's the right level of inequality? Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University, says whether a certain level of inequality is good or bad depends on how it came be.

"If your society has a lot of inequality because a lot of your producers have done very well selling their products on global markets, that kind of inequality is not harmful in general," he says. "But if you have inequality because your poorer people don't have enough economic opportunity, I would say that is a big problem."

Cowen thinks the big rise in incomes at the top in the U.S. is coming mostly for the right reasons. But he is concerned that incomes are stagnating for Americans in the middle and at the bottom. He believes that's partly the result of inadequate education and the high cost of health care and housing.

There was a period of declining inequality in the U.S.: in the three decades after World War II. But, as Cowen points out, that happened because so much wealth and capital, like factories, were destroyed in the previous three decades by two world wars and the Great Depression.

"The relative equality following World War II was because we had destroyed so many things in the world and we needed to rebuild them, and that created a lot of middle-class jobs for people," he says. "But short of having another world war, we cannot re-create those circumstances, and of course we shouldn't try to."

But there were other reasons for a more equal distribution of income and wealth back then: higher taxes on the wealthy, for one. And, Harvard labor economist Richard Freeman says, there was another difference between then and now.

"One of the key factors in that period of time was very strong unions," he says. Those unions bargained with the owners of capital to give workers a larger share of the economy's output.

But Freeman says we shouldn't look to unions, which are much weaker now, to have a big impact. In fact, he takes a very different tack.

"The capitalists are making money; everybody's got to be a bit of a capitalist," he says.

That's an idea as old as America's beginnings, says Freeman. The founders, he says, thought broad ownership of land, a capital asset, was very important.

"That was being driven by the notion that if we don't make sure that everybody has an ownership stake in what was the capital of that time, we were going to end up with a class of rich people separate from the middle class, and that was not healthy for democracy," Freeman says.

He advocates employee stock ownership and profit-sharing as tactics for closing America's inequality gap. Milanovic suggests substantial estate taxes and more equal taxation of labor and capital — currently income from labor is taxed at significantly higher levels. Cowen would focus on improving education and on making health care and housing more affordable to help people at the bottom do better.




“Inequality in the U.S. has risen to levels not seen since the 1920s. The top 1 percent pocket more than 20 percent of the nation's income, and the 400 richest people in the country own more wealth than everyone in the bottom 50 percent....That's not healthy for the society or the economy, says Branko Milanovic, an economists at the City University of New York Graduate Center. For one thing, he says, it undermines the idea of equal opportunity....That hurts individuals and, Milanovic says, it hurts the broader economy by not allowing a whole segment of society to be as productive as it could be.”

Thomas Piketty, French author of 'Capital In The Twenty-First Century' stated that the divide between rich and poor will continue to widen as wage earners get less and less from the few jobs they are able to get. Milanovic said that this process threatens democracy as the wealthy people get more and more political power in the government. He goes on to say that without some inequality there would be no more incentive for citizens to strive toward improving their lives. That's an old Republican argument, and it probably has some truth to it, but the kind of inequality that exhausts and ultimately defeats a citizen is not good for anybody – except the richest and they don't need any more help.

Tyler Cowen, an economist at George Mason University said how the inequality came into being is more important. If it is because of the pressure on the poor which is keeping them down it is harmful. If the poor are doing okay and can provide for their needs, it's not so bad. He says that “he is concerned that incomes are stagnating for Americans in the middle and at the bottom. He believes that's partly the result of inadequate education and the high cost of health care and housing.”

There is evidence of this on the local and national news as householders are losing their homes because they can't pay the mortgage, and in the fact that wages haven't risen in over a ten year period – at least in the office work that I did much of my life – much more than two or three dollars an hour for a non-managerial worker.

The cost of living on the other hand, has. People who used to be middle class are losing that status, and you can't tell me that this isn't harming the economy and the society. I notice unions are cropping up again. Right now it is the fast food workers, whose wages have been notoriously stagnant. Restaurant workers in general are not much better off, though they get tips, big deal. Sometimes the restaurant manager actually takes a part of their tip.

The period after the two World Wars and due to the crippling effects of the Great Depression was more balanced, with workers gaining jobs and powerful unions keeping their wages higher than they had been before. Now the unions are not as powerful. Of course, it is very possible that when poor people get poor enough they will rebel and union will rise in influence again. It also was a period, however, when the wealthy were paying higher taxes. There has been a long-term push by Republicans to continually lower taxes. That needs to stop and be reversed.

Richard Freeman, a labor economist from Harvard, says that poor people have to become themselves more like capitalists. “He advocates employee stock ownership and profit-sharing as tactics for closing America's inequality gap.” Milanovic suggests “substantial estate taxes and more equal taxation of labor and capital”, while Cowen said he would focus on lowering health and housing costs for the poor and improving education among the lower classes.

As long as the free market continues, I think the cost of living for Americans will continue to rise; and people with four year degrees, if their degree is not in business, law or other economically useful fields, are still going without jobs in today's market. Things have improved some, but not enough. Doing anything about that would be put down as being “pinko Communist doctrine.” As for the raising of taxes on the wealthy, I think that has a better chance, as the Democrats have been pushing in Congress and the Senate on that lately. At least I certainly hope so.





Intriguing Lime Green Blobs Appear In The Andes Mountains. Are They Alive? – NPR
by Robert Krulwich
May 18, 2014


Oops.
Someone dropped lime sherbet on the desert — and it's melting. Who's going to clean this up?

Nobody. Because this — believe it or not — is a plant. It may look like a glob of goo, but it's not at all gooey. It's solid to the touch, so solid that a man can lie on top of it and not sink in, not even a little.

What kind of plant is this? In Spanish it's called llareta, and it's a member of the Apiaceae family, which makes it a cousin to parsley, carrots and fennel. But being a desert plant, high up in Chile's extraordinarily dry Atacama, it grows very, very slowly — a little over a centimeter a year.

Think about that. If you asked one of these plants, "What did you do during the 20th century?" it would answer, "I grew a meter bigger." At that rate, plants rising to shoulder height (covering yards of ground, lump after lump) must be really, really old. In fact, some of them are older than the Giant Sequoias of California, older than towering coast redwoods. In Chile, many of them go back 3,000 years — well before the Golden Age of Greece.

They look like green gift-wrapping. One imagines that they are mold-like, wrapping themselves around boulders. But that's wrong. The truth is much weirder. That hard surface is actually a dense collection of tens of thousands of flowering buds at the ends of long stems, so densely packed, they create a compact surface. The plant is very, very dry, and makes for great kindling.

As the Bolivian guide explains in the video below (the plant can be found throughout the Andes), llareta is such good fuel that, even though it's very ancient, people regularly use it to start campfires and even, back in the day, to run locomotives. (That's 3, 000 to 4,000 years of captured sunshine thrown into a steam engine for a quick ride — I'm trying not to think about that.) It's also good for muscle pain.

The best thing about llareta is what it looks like. It's like nothing else. You climb 10,000 to 15,000 feet up into the Andes; there are boulders, loose rocks, jagged edges all about, and suddenly you come upon this soft-looking round thing that resembles a lime-green beach ball, and you think, "What is this?" When artist/photographer Rachel Sussman saw her first llareta, she apparently did a little happy dance. As she writes in her new book, "Every once in a while you see something so ludicrously beautiful that all you can do is laugh."

Me too.

Artist/photographer Rachel Sussman has some pretty nice photos of llareta in her new book, The Oldest Living Things in the World. You can see and hear Rachel talking about her photos here. Our llareta photos come courtesy of the Terrace Lodge, in Putre, Chile, very near Lauca National Park where, due to melting ice and water vapor floating in, there's just enough moisture to keep the plants growing.



Yareta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yareta or llareta (Azorella compacta, also known as "Llareta" in Spanish and historically as Azorella yareta) is a flowering plant in the family Apiaceae native to South America. It occurs in the Puna grasslands of the Andesin Peru, Bolivia, northern Chile, and western Argentina at altitudes between 3,200 and 4,500 meters.

Yareta is an evergreen perennial with pink or lavender flowers. The self-fertile flowers are hermaphroditic and are pollinated by insects.

Yareta is well-adapted to high insolation rates typical of the Andes highlands and cannot grow in shade. The plant's leaves grow into an extremely compact, dense mat that reduces heat loss. This mat grows near the ground where air temperature is one or two degrees Celsius higher than the mean air temperature. This temperature difference is a result of the longwave radiation re-radiated by the soil surface (which is usually dark gray to black in the Puna).

The yareta is estimated to grow approximately 1.5 centimeters per year(Kleier and Rundel 2004). Many yaretas are estimated to be over 3,000 years old. Though traditionally harvested for fuel, its slow growth makes this practice non-sustainable.


A related Wikipedia article called “Cushion Plant” refers to this Llareta as well as a number of others around the world which have had a “parallel evolution” to grow in that form to make use of small amounts of available water. The plants are not related to each other genetically.


I strongly suggest that readers go to the NPR May 18 news site and look up this article so you can see what the “blobs” look like. They are piled in a more or less circular mass with another layer of them on top of those. There are many of these groupings extending out into the background of the picture and they have some black features sitting on the top. Spore cases, possibly? No, because this article calls them flowering plants. Maybe they extend a stalk upwards for the flowers to grow on, or have a bed of flowers over the top. I do wish I could go see these.