https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/gsu-cfa110216.php
Public Release: 7-Nov-2016
Common food additive promotes colon cancer in mice
Georgia State University
Emulsifiers, which are added to most processed foods to aid texture and extend shelf life, can alter intestinal bacteria in a manner that promotes intestinal inflammation and colorectal cancer, according to a new study.
The findings, published in the journal Cancer Research, show regular consumption of dietary emulsifiers in mice exacerbated tumor development. The study was led by Drs. Emilie Viennois, Didier Merlin, Andrew T. Gewirtz and Benoit Chassaing, researchers in Georgia State University's Institute for Biomedical Sciences.
Colorectal cancer, the fourth leading cause of cancer-related deaths worldwide, was responsible for about 700,000 deaths in 2012. There is increasing awareness that the intestinal microbiota, the vast, diverse population of microorganisms that inhabits the human intestines, play a role in driving colorectal cancer.
The microbiota is also a key factor in driving Crohn's disease and ulcerative colitis, the two most common forms of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD). IBD is known to promote colon tumorigenesis and gave rise to the term "colitis-associated cancer." Low-grade inflammation, a condition more prevalent than IBD, was shown to be associated with altered gut microbiota composition and metabolic disease and is observed in many cases of colorectal cancer. These recent findings suggest dietary emulsifiers might be partially responsible for this association.
"The incidence of colorectal cancer has been markedly increasing since the mid-20th century," said Viennois, assistant professor in the Institute for Biomedical Sciences. "A key feature of this disease is the presence of an altered intestinal microbiota that creates a favorable niche for tumorigenesis."
"The dramatic increase in these diseases has occurred amidst constant human genetics, suggesting a pivotal role for an environmental factor," said Chassaing, assistant professor in the Institute for Biomedical Sciences.
•••••
In this study, the team fed mice with two very commonly used emulsifiers, polysorbate 80 and carboxymethylcellulose, at doses seeking to model the broad consumption of the numerous emulsifiers that are incorporated into the majority of processed foods. Researchers observed that consuming emulsifiers drastically changed the species composition of the gut microbiota in a manner that made it more pro-inflammatory, creating a niche favoring cancer induction and development. Alterations in bacterial species resulted in bacteria expressing more flagellin and lipopolysaccharide, which activate pro-inflammatory gene expression by the immune system.
•••••
Monday, November 07, 2016
University of Toronto study reveals secret to a happy sex life
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/uot-uot110716.php
Public Release: 7-Nov-2016
University of Toronto study reveals secret to a happy sex life
University of Toronto
The secret to a happy sex life in long-term relationships is the belief that it takes hard work and effort, instead of expecting sexual satisfaction to simply happen if you are true soulmates, says a study led by a University of Toronto (U of T) social psychology researcher.
These "sexpectations" -- the need to work on sexual growth or rely on sexual destiny -- are so powerful they can either sustain otherwise healthy relationships or undermine them, says Jessica Maxwell, a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychology in the Faculty of Arts & Science at U of T.
"People who believe in sexual destiny are using their sex life as a barometer for how well their relationship is doing, and they believe problems in the bedroom equal problems in the relationship as a whole," says Maxwell.
"Whereas people who believe in sexual growth not only believe they can work on their sexual problems, but they are not letting it affect their relationship satisfaction."
•••••
Maxwell says there is a honeymoon phase lasting about two to three years where sexual satisfaction is high among both sexual growth and sexual destiny believers.
But the benefit of believing in sexual growth becomes apparent after this initial phase, as sexual desire begins to ebb and flow.
"We know that disagreements in the sexual domain are somewhat inevitable over time," says Maxwell. "Your sex life is like a garden, and it needs to be watered and nurtured to maintain it."
While her research did not focus on the influence of media on sex beliefs, it is clear pop culture has conditioned us to accept and understand that other aspects of relationships, such as the division of household chores, takes work and effort, Maxwell notes.
Hollywood's glamorous portrayal of sex and romance in shows like The Bachelor are less grounded in reality, however, which may fuel a "soulmate" philosophy that is not as adaptable to conflicts and problems that arise over time.
Maxwell says her research provided at least one example of the media's impact on the sexual domain. She was able to influence people's beliefs by "priming" them with phoney magazine articles that either emphasized sexual destiny philosophies, or advocated the idea that sex takes work.
Like everything else concerning human relationships, however, the study suggests the distinctions between the two schools of belief are more shades of grey than black and white.
For example, the research demonstrated there are often aspects of both sexual growth and sexual destiny beliefs in the same individual.
•••••
The study showed that, while sexual-growth beliefs can buffer the impact of problems in the bedroom, they don't help as much if the problems become too substantial.
There is also some evidence that sexual-destiny believers may be open to making changes in their sex life for the sake of their partners, but only if they are convinced they are their true soulmate.
•••••
Public Release: 7-Nov-2016
University of Toronto study reveals secret to a happy sex life
University of Toronto
The secret to a happy sex life in long-term relationships is the belief that it takes hard work and effort, instead of expecting sexual satisfaction to simply happen if you are true soulmates, says a study led by a University of Toronto (U of T) social psychology researcher.
These "sexpectations" -- the need to work on sexual growth or rely on sexual destiny -- are so powerful they can either sustain otherwise healthy relationships or undermine them, says Jessica Maxwell, a PhD candidate in the Department of Psychology in the Faculty of Arts & Science at U of T.
"People who believe in sexual destiny are using their sex life as a barometer for how well their relationship is doing, and they believe problems in the bedroom equal problems in the relationship as a whole," says Maxwell.
"Whereas people who believe in sexual growth not only believe they can work on their sexual problems, but they are not letting it affect their relationship satisfaction."
•••••
Maxwell says there is a honeymoon phase lasting about two to three years where sexual satisfaction is high among both sexual growth and sexual destiny believers.
But the benefit of believing in sexual growth becomes apparent after this initial phase, as sexual desire begins to ebb and flow.
"We know that disagreements in the sexual domain are somewhat inevitable over time," says Maxwell. "Your sex life is like a garden, and it needs to be watered and nurtured to maintain it."
While her research did not focus on the influence of media on sex beliefs, it is clear pop culture has conditioned us to accept and understand that other aspects of relationships, such as the division of household chores, takes work and effort, Maxwell notes.
Hollywood's glamorous portrayal of sex and romance in shows like The Bachelor are less grounded in reality, however, which may fuel a "soulmate" philosophy that is not as adaptable to conflicts and problems that arise over time.
Maxwell says her research provided at least one example of the media's impact on the sexual domain. She was able to influence people's beliefs by "priming" them with phoney magazine articles that either emphasized sexual destiny philosophies, or advocated the idea that sex takes work.
Like everything else concerning human relationships, however, the study suggests the distinctions between the two schools of belief are more shades of grey than black and white.
For example, the research demonstrated there are often aspects of both sexual growth and sexual destiny beliefs in the same individual.
•••••
The study showed that, while sexual-growth beliefs can buffer the impact of problems in the bedroom, they don't help as much if the problems become too substantial.
There is also some evidence that sexual-destiny believers may be open to making changes in their sex life for the sake of their partners, but only if they are convinced they are their true soulmate.
•••••
All Politics Is National
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/all-politics-is-national/
How state politicians went from solving the problems in their own backyards to mimicking the gridlock in Washington.
By Craig Fehrman
Published Nov 7, 2016
•••••
Each presidential cycle, someone scolds Americans for not paying enough attention to state politics. (This someone is usually on Twitter.) The criticism both is and isn’t correct. It’s true that a lot of people ignore the policies behind their sewage systems and water pipes. And most of us — voters, politicians, data-driven websites — spend far more time debating national politics than the state (or local) varieties. Yet it’s also true that, in the last few years, we’ve talked a ton about state issues. Voter ID laws, abortion restrictions, minimum wage hikes, legalized marijuana, gun control, LGBT rights — each of these is an exhaustively covered example of state politics.
In 2016, then, the most interesting thing about our state politics is how these two strands, the everyday and the ideological, intersect. State politicians are becoming more partisan and more polarized, much like national politicians. But this party-driven approach isn’t just influencing left-right issues like abortion or guns. It’s spreading through every part of state government, with surprising and potentially troubling results. It’s why Fairview’s water pipes haven’t been fixed — for reasons that have little to do with water, oil or even Montana itself.
Before we dive into the states and their political divide, allow me a bipartisan caveat. The examples I’m highlighting will center on Republicans, because Republicans have become more extreme at the state level, just like at the national level, and because state Republicans are cleaning up: The GOP currently controls 68 of 981 state legislative chambers and 31 of the 50 governorships. One can imagine a future where Democrats create a similar ruckus. But for now, most state policies come from Republicans.
Those policies influence every part of our day-to-day lives. Start with the obvious ones — roads and utilities, of course, but also health care, education and taxes (tobacco, gas, property, sales, income, etc.). The state you live in determines tort law, contract law and a big chunk of criminal law. If you live in Connecticut, for instance, you’d need to steal $2,000 worth of goods for it to count as a felony; cross over to Massachusetts and that threshold drops to $250. With more serious crimes, the state you live in can determine whether you’re eligible for post-conviction DNA analysis or even for the death penalty. The state you live in determines whether you can request a physician-assisted suicide. It can determine how long you stay on food stamps; it can determine the type of fireworks you buy. The state you live in determines whether your teenager receives abstinence-only sex education; it also determines whether the teenager driving in the other lane is allowed to text in the car.
•••••
Although some of these policies are divisive, far more are essential and mundane. In fact, for each new law Congress passes, states pass more than 75 of their own. Those laws loom even larger when we remember that fewer and fewer Americans move. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, six in ten Americans were born in their current state of residence. Your state shapes your world, especially if you can’t (or don’t want to) leave.
•••••
From 2003 to 2014, local newspapers lost a third of their full-time statehouse reporters (overall staffing decreased at the same time); 86 percent of local TV stations lack a single statehouse reporter. Even if there were more coverage, it’s not clear that readers or viewers would notice. One 2012 survey of Tennessee adults found that only 12 percent said they followed state politics “very closely”; 36 percent said they followed them “fairly closely.” But only one in five respondents could name their statehouse representative. [Mine have changed several times due to redistricting.]
•••••
A simpler measure of awareness is to ask voters to identify the party that controls their state’s legislature. Even here, though, the results are lackluster. When the American National Election Studies’ Evaluations of Government and Society Study asked this question in 2010, 47 percent of registered voters got it right, far fewer than got it right for Congress.
•••••
That’s the good news for incumbents everywhere. Here’s the bad: if more than half of voters don’t know who runs the statehouse, then those same voters also don’t know whom to reward (or to blame). The best place to see this is in the research of Steven Rogers, a political scientist at St. Louis University who specializes in state legislatures. Rogers has analyzed decades of data across dozens of states. He’s tested various factors to see how they might influence voters: the state’s economy, tax rates, homicide rate and student reading scores, among others. What Rogers has found is that these measures have little or no effect on whether a state legislator wins re-election. Instead, state races correlate largely with presidential politics — whether the voter approves of the president and whether the legislator belongs to the president’s party. Crafting great (or terrible) legislation on jobs or criminal sentencing doesn’t seem to matter. “Whether or not state legislators are elected,” Rogers said, “has very little to do with them.”
The most surprising thing about Rogers’s findings is their consistency. The proportion of seats a party wins in the U.S. House overlaps to an uncanny degree with the proportion of seats it wins in the state houses, and this national-local link stretches back to World War I. In other words, it’s not just that most voters ignore what’s happening at the state level — it’s that they’ve ignored it for a century or more.
•••••
But there’s no question that our states are changing. While both sides are becoming more extreme, state Republicans are moving further to the right than state Democrats are moving to the left. According to the DW-NOMINATE-style tool, 18 state legislatures are now more conservative than Congress, some of them drastically so. The latest data suggests that 26 state legislatures were more polarized than Congress in 2013.
•••••
How state politicians went from solving the problems in their own backyards to mimicking the gridlock in Washington.
By Craig Fehrman
Published Nov 7, 2016
•••••
Each presidential cycle, someone scolds Americans for not paying enough attention to state politics. (This someone is usually on Twitter.) The criticism both is and isn’t correct. It’s true that a lot of people ignore the policies behind their sewage systems and water pipes. And most of us — voters, politicians, data-driven websites — spend far more time debating national politics than the state (or local) varieties. Yet it’s also true that, in the last few years, we’ve talked a ton about state issues. Voter ID laws, abortion restrictions, minimum wage hikes, legalized marijuana, gun control, LGBT rights — each of these is an exhaustively covered example of state politics.
In 2016, then, the most interesting thing about our state politics is how these two strands, the everyday and the ideological, intersect. State politicians are becoming more partisan and more polarized, much like national politicians. But this party-driven approach isn’t just influencing left-right issues like abortion or guns. It’s spreading through every part of state government, with surprising and potentially troubling results. It’s why Fairview’s water pipes haven’t been fixed — for reasons that have little to do with water, oil or even Montana itself.
Before we dive into the states and their political divide, allow me a bipartisan caveat. The examples I’m highlighting will center on Republicans, because Republicans have become more extreme at the state level, just like at the national level, and because state Republicans are cleaning up: The GOP currently controls 68 of 981 state legislative chambers and 31 of the 50 governorships. One can imagine a future where Democrats create a similar ruckus. But for now, most state policies come from Republicans.
Those policies influence every part of our day-to-day lives. Start with the obvious ones — roads and utilities, of course, but also health care, education and taxes (tobacco, gas, property, sales, income, etc.). The state you live in determines tort law, contract law and a big chunk of criminal law. If you live in Connecticut, for instance, you’d need to steal $2,000 worth of goods for it to count as a felony; cross over to Massachusetts and that threshold drops to $250. With more serious crimes, the state you live in can determine whether you’re eligible for post-conviction DNA analysis or even for the death penalty. The state you live in determines whether you can request a physician-assisted suicide. It can determine how long you stay on food stamps; it can determine the type of fireworks you buy. The state you live in determines whether your teenager receives abstinence-only sex education; it also determines whether the teenager driving in the other lane is allowed to text in the car.
•••••
Although some of these policies are divisive, far more are essential and mundane. In fact, for each new law Congress passes, states pass more than 75 of their own. Those laws loom even larger when we remember that fewer and fewer Americans move. According to the 2010 American Community Survey, six in ten Americans were born in their current state of residence. Your state shapes your world, especially if you can’t (or don’t want to) leave.
•••••
From 2003 to 2014, local newspapers lost a third of their full-time statehouse reporters (overall staffing decreased at the same time); 86 percent of local TV stations lack a single statehouse reporter. Even if there were more coverage, it’s not clear that readers or viewers would notice. One 2012 survey of Tennessee adults found that only 12 percent said they followed state politics “very closely”; 36 percent said they followed them “fairly closely.” But only one in five respondents could name their statehouse representative. [Mine have changed several times due to redistricting.]
•••••
A simpler measure of awareness is to ask voters to identify the party that controls their state’s legislature. Even here, though, the results are lackluster. When the American National Election Studies’ Evaluations of Government and Society Study asked this question in 2010, 47 percent of registered voters got it right, far fewer than got it right for Congress.
•••••
That’s the good news for incumbents everywhere. Here’s the bad: if more than half of voters don’t know who runs the statehouse, then those same voters also don’t know whom to reward (or to blame). The best place to see this is in the research of Steven Rogers, a political scientist at St. Louis University who specializes in state legislatures. Rogers has analyzed decades of data across dozens of states. He’s tested various factors to see how they might influence voters: the state’s economy, tax rates, homicide rate and student reading scores, among others. What Rogers has found is that these measures have little or no effect on whether a state legislator wins re-election. Instead, state races correlate largely with presidential politics — whether the voter approves of the president and whether the legislator belongs to the president’s party. Crafting great (or terrible) legislation on jobs or criminal sentencing doesn’t seem to matter. “Whether or not state legislators are elected,” Rogers said, “has very little to do with them.”
The most surprising thing about Rogers’s findings is their consistency. The proportion of seats a party wins in the U.S. House overlaps to an uncanny degree with the proportion of seats it wins in the state houses, and this national-local link stretches back to World War I. In other words, it’s not just that most voters ignore what’s happening at the state level — it’s that they’ve ignored it for a century or more.
•••••
But there’s no question that our states are changing. While both sides are becoming more extreme, state Republicans are moving further to the right than state Democrats are moving to the left. According to the DW-NOMINATE-style tool, 18 state legislatures are now more conservative than Congress, some of them drastically so. The latest data suggests that 26 state legislatures were more polarized than Congress in 2013.
•••••
America is more fragile than you think: A former Marine Corps officer on why voters must defeat Donald Trump
I suggest reading the whole article at the following link.http://qz.com/827376/america-is-more-fragile-than-you-think-a-marine-corps-officer-on-why-voters-must-defeat-donald-trump/
Written by Jake Cusack
Nov. 4, 2016
When I came back from Iraq the second time, I had trouble driving. My tours as a Marine had shown me how easily metal could tear through flesh. Now I was acutely aware that life is precarious. I was amazed that people could be blasé while driving 80 mph. Could they not see that a small mistake could be enough to kill them?
I feel the same way now as an American citizen, watching a good portion of the country consider voting for Donald Trump. Having grown up in the Midwest and served in the military, I can understand why both have large constituencies supporting the Republican presidential candidate. But I believe Trump supporters underestimate how fragile what we have is.
•••••
It’s no wonder that people in the heartland have slowly turned to right-wing media, preferring to get their news from sources that do not treat them as dumb country cousins at a metropolitan gala.
Unfortunately, these outlets have abused such trust by force-feeding their audiences a diet of outrage. Scroll through the constellation of fear mongering sites that orbit conservative media and try to recognize the America you know in those stories. It makes sense that Trump supporters can believe so wholeheartedly that the country is on the verge of collapse.
•••••
These and other concerns with legitimate roots turn some of my friends and family towards Trump’s aggressive stance and anti-establishment voice, even as they are fully cognizant of his massive personal flaws.
•••••
But what they don’t see is how tenuous it all is. I’ve spent my life since Iraq in and out of conflict zones and fragile states. I’ve seen educated, wealthy communities descend overnight into ethnic cleansing. I’ve seen family men turned into butchers. I’ve seen a charismatic reformed warlord, surrounded by capable technical advisors, steer his country irretrievably into the abyss.
•••••
I was traveling across Mali, Cote d’Ivoire, and Sierra Leone when Trump escalated his comments suggesting that he’d try to put Hillary Clinton in jail and doubled down on his assertion of “rigged elections.” People there knew exactly what he meant, because they have heard that rhetoric before. This is the language of lands without strong institutions, bereft of the mutual trust that glues our democracy together. It’s the language of civil wars.
•••••
There’s nothing irreversible in America’s character that makes the country forever safe. ISIS, as it stands today, cannot compare to the threat that someone like Trump could pose to the US. The world has not matured past the specter of global conflict or the possibility of nuclear holocaust. We are not inherently different than all those previous generations who also thought they had reached the end of major wars. For our safety and as the world’s indispensable nation, America cannot have a President Trump.
Hillary Clinton is more than simply an alternative to Trump. She has certainly made mistakes, often amplified by a lack of transparency. Moreover, the Clintons have often allowed themselves to be surrounded by a political courtier class that embodies the establishment and is rife with potential conflicts of interest. But Clinton has also routinely been saddled with negative baggage that is not her own, but instead a byproduct of an exceptionally visible and polarizing political life. She is smart, thorough, and diligent in her study of complex topics. In the foreign policy world that I know best, I believe she could be among the most capable presidents of the last century.
While I understand those who choose to vote for a third-party candidate, I believe the utter unfitness of Trump imposes an obligation to vote for Hillary. Trump must not just lose, he must be soundly defeated—so that someone of his ilk cannot be taken seriously as a potential president again. A close call could invite a slightly more palatable would-be despot, or Trump himself, to try again.
For those who say they’d rather not decide between flawed choices, I’d ask them to think about what life is like every day for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. They don’t have the luxury of abstaining or making a protest vote on the flawed options they see before them every day.
•••••
Sunday, November 06, 2016
Record Dry Streaks Leave Parts of the South Rainless Since September
You can find the number of days since it rained at a particular location at the following link:https://www.wunderground.com/news/record-dry-streaks-southeast-drought-fall-2016
http://www.dayssinceitrained.com/
Jon Erdman
Jonathan Erdman is a senior meteorologist at weather.com and has been an incurable weather geek since a tornado narrowly missed his childhood home in Wisconsin at age 7.
Published: November 6, 2016
Parts of the Deep South haven't seen measurable rain since September, setting new all-time record dry streaks and quickly worsening the Southeast's drought this fall.
Chief among these streaks is Alabama's most populous city.
No measurable rain (at least .01 inches) has been tallied at Birmingham's Shuttlesworth International Airport since Sept. 18, over a month and a half's time, a record-long dry streak for the city dating to 1930.
Nine minutes of sprinkles Friday morning, and another bout of sprinkles on Oct. 16 has been the entirety of Birmingham's rainfall so far this fall.
They're not alone. Anniston, Alabama, Meridian, Mississippi, and Rome, Georgia, each have 40-day dry streaks through Saturday, setting records in Anniston and Rome.
The Weather Channel meteorologist Kathryn Prociv noted even rainfall totals in the Desert Southwest since Oct. 1 were topping those in the "Desert Southeast."
•••••
Going over a month without rain, coupled with record-smashing heat, quickly plunged a large part of the Southeast into a worsening drought, reaching exceptional levels in parts of Alabama, Tennessee and Georgia.
Reservoir levels have plunged, triggering major water restrictions. Friday, a stage 4 extreme drought emergency was declared in the city of Birmingham.
According to The Weather Channel meteorologist Mike Seidel, over 1,200 fires have burned in Alabama since Oct. 1.
Incredibly, Hurricanes Hermine and then Matthew both soaked parts of North Florida, eastern Georgia and the Carolinas, but both delivered little or no rain to Alabama, the western Florida Panhandle and the Tennessee Valley.
Strangely, the rain shut off after that for the rest of October in most of the hurricane-soaked areas.
•••••
The long-range outlook for the rest of November from The Weather Company, an IBM Business, doesn't paint a rosy picture for drought relief either. Despite temperatures finally trending at least a bit off the recent record highs, it may be a while before a good soaking rain quenches the Southeast drought's thirst.
Records Are In Jeopardy For Latest First Freeze in the Midwest
Atlanta had at least 4 days with record high temperature in the last week and a half. It has finally cooled off, only 5°F above average the last few days. Of course, the average now is higher than it used to be, because of global warming.
Linda Lam
Published: November 6, 2016
Another side effect of the record warmth that has dominated much of the U.S. since October is the lacking of freezing temperatures. Most cities in the Midwest have yet to see the thermometer drop to the 32-degree mark and now records are in jeopardy.
A persistent upper-level ridge of high pressure has brought warmer than average temperatures to the Plains, Midwest, South, and at times the Northeast. There does not appear to be a pattern change until mid-November at the earliest.
Numerous daily record highs were set at the end of October and beginning of November and a few monthly record highs were even broken for November. More record highs have been set this weekend, including in Minneapolis which hit 73 degrees Saturday. This trend now has its sights set on breaking records for latest first freeze.
Temperatures below freezing have been hard to come by lately in the contiguous U.S. You need to head towards northern New England and some of the higher elevations of the inter-mountain West to find freezing conditions. Consequently, locations that would have normally seen their first freeze of the season are still waiting.
•••••
If the current warm forecast holds then more records may fall later this month. This includes Kansas City, Missouri, and Chicago which both have records for latest freeze on Nov. 24, as well as St. Louis, Indianapolis and Cleveland which have their latest freezes currently on Nov. 27.
•••••
Even if records are not broken, many locations will see their first freeze a month or more later than their average first freeze.
•••••
There are indications than a southward dip in the jet stream may develop over the East mid-November, which may bring some colder temperatures to the region. It will be interesting to see if some East coast cities see their first freeze before parts of the Midwest.
Donald Trump Hired Me As An Attorney. Please Don’t Support Him For President.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-hired-me-as-an-attorneyplease-dont_us_579e52dee4b00e7e269fb30f?
Thomas M. Wells
Attorney and businessman with offices in NJ and Vermont and homes in Vermont , NY and St.Thomas. Active in real estate and non profits.
July 31, 2016
•••••
In 1987, when I was 35 years old and he was 41, Donald Trump hired me to be his attorney on a major northern New Jersey project, a shopping center, which like everything else, was to bear his name, Trump Centre. It was a big deal that he picked me and a high honor for me just a couple of years after I started my law firm, which is now over 30 years old. This was at a time when Trump still built things, having recently finished Trump Tower.
He seemed to me smart, business savvy, decisive. He had a very impressive office, a fancy and very big boat, an airline, a helicopter shuttle and several casinos. Within a few years, virtually all of this would be lost because of bad business decisions.
•••••
Donald Trump was then, as he is now, larger than life, particularly in his own eyes, and at the same time frighteningly small, with very little moral grounding. He was then, and still is, all ego and show.
•••••
I have thought about this a lot, and I want to share my humble insights of why we cannot elect Donald Trump as president of the United States. To me, it is more about character than politics. Because of lack of the former, the latter ― the actual politics of Donald Trump ― are not that easy to discern.
Once I got going with my reasons why Donald would not be good for our country, it was hard to stop. I did stop, however, when I hit 20, about 4,000 words from here. Read on if you are interested.
1. The man lies all the time. ...
2. It is actually not all about the candidate. ...
•••••
His ego seems to know no bounds. When Donald feels insulted by someone, he obsesses without control.
•••••
3. U.S. presidents are by design not kings. ...
•••••
4. The devil IS in the details. ...
5. Words matter. ...
6. Reading is good. So is studying.
Donald Trump recently told us that he does not read much. We know from the recent revelations by Tony Schwartz, his ghost writer on The Art of the Deal (yes, I do have my copy from when it first came out, autographed with Donald telling me to “keep up the great work”), which Donald says is second only to the Bible as the must-read book, that he certainly has not written a book ― at least not that one. ...
7. The new vocabulary we are adjusting to is not a good one. ...
8. We need to be careful with “tough.”
Donald Trump said of a protester at one of his rallies, “in the good old days they would have carried him out on a stretcher.” His world reveres this brand of toughness. This toughness is not about the strength it takes to use restraint or to make really hard decisions. It is about “punching that guy in the face,” or at a minimum, saving face ― his.
I will resist the temptation to belabor the nuclear codes point again, and rather just query do we really want a thin-skinned president who, as he suggested, if a government leader (Castro) was not on the tarmac to meet his plane, “would turn around Air Force One and come home.” ...
9. Success does matter. ...
•••••
Four business bankruptcies (1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009), the Plaza Hotel, Trump Air, all three casinos (a couple times) the steaks, the water, Trump Centre in New Jersey that I worked on, Manhattan’s West Side rail yards (where buildings do bear his name as a consolation), the much-hyped $35,000 get-rich scheme Trump University ― all failures by any measure except of course to Donald, who “has no regrets, whatsoever.”
Then there are basic business ethics: 3,500 lawsuits, the fact that he has penchant for not paying bills fully or on time, or that he calls himself the “King of Debt” ― a king made rich by running up debt, then renegotiating it. Is this the skill set we want for the president?
•••••
10. We could not be the great country we are without the First Amendment, but our media may kill us.
The media is not Donald’s enemy as he keeps announcing from the stage. It may be the enemy of the rest of us, however. It sure feels like it lately. The air time Donald gets, and his ability to phone in his rants (especially with the cable media) is nothing short of, to use one of his words, “disgusting.” ...
11. Temperament, demeanor and character are important.
In many ways, Donald represents the very worst in all of us, or at least many of us. He is all about continuous gratification. He is the petulant child who wants his way. He is the selfish teenager with no big picture yet. He is the spoiled young man of privilege with the “right” race and religion, education, good looks, and family fortune to succeed easily, and who looks down on others lacking in any of the above who do not. ...
12. The emperor and his clothes. ...
13. Sophomoric speech tricks don’t work ― at least not with most of us. ...
14. A thin skin does not work for a president. ...
15. Bullies will always exist somewhere, but the White House should not be that somewhere. ...
16. Law and order. ...
17. Incoherent rants, often contradictory, does not a foreign policy make. ...
18. How will anyone effectively be president if we don’t at least respect the office? ...
19. Rich and powerful guys have to play by the rules, too. ...
20. We must stand for something. ...
•••••
One has to wonder, what does the America of the “real Americans” look like? A bunch of intolerant, hyper aggressive, folks behind a big wall, isolated (not trading with anyone and thus with a sick economy and very expensive goods) and with a lot of enemies. No “Shining City on the Hill,” for sure. Hard to see anything but ruin ahead for such a place.
We can do so much better! For me, better comes easily in the form of former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. For those who do not come to that conclusion easily (I get it), this year it will have to be the lesser of two evils. No matter what, don’t even think about taking us into the abyss that is Donald Trump.
Thomas M. Wells
Attorney and businessman with offices in NJ and Vermont and homes in Vermont , NY and St.Thomas. Active in real estate and non profits.
July 31, 2016
•••••
In 1987, when I was 35 years old and he was 41, Donald Trump hired me to be his attorney on a major northern New Jersey project, a shopping center, which like everything else, was to bear his name, Trump Centre. It was a big deal that he picked me and a high honor for me just a couple of years after I started my law firm, which is now over 30 years old. This was at a time when Trump still built things, having recently finished Trump Tower.
He seemed to me smart, business savvy, decisive. He had a very impressive office, a fancy and very big boat, an airline, a helicopter shuttle and several casinos. Within a few years, virtually all of this would be lost because of bad business decisions.
•••••
Donald Trump was then, as he is now, larger than life, particularly in his own eyes, and at the same time frighteningly small, with very little moral grounding. He was then, and still is, all ego and show.
•••••
I have thought about this a lot, and I want to share my humble insights of why we cannot elect Donald Trump as president of the United States. To me, it is more about character than politics. Because of lack of the former, the latter ― the actual politics of Donald Trump ― are not that easy to discern.
Once I got going with my reasons why Donald would not be good for our country, it was hard to stop. I did stop, however, when I hit 20, about 4,000 words from here. Read on if you are interested.
1. The man lies all the time. ...
2. It is actually not all about the candidate. ...
•••••
His ego seems to know no bounds. When Donald feels insulted by someone, he obsesses without control.
•••••
3. U.S. presidents are by design not kings. ...
•••••
4. The devil IS in the details. ...
5. Words matter. ...
6. Reading is good. So is studying.
Donald Trump recently told us that he does not read much. We know from the recent revelations by Tony Schwartz, his ghost writer on The Art of the Deal (yes, I do have my copy from when it first came out, autographed with Donald telling me to “keep up the great work”), which Donald says is second only to the Bible as the must-read book, that he certainly has not written a book ― at least not that one. ...
7. The new vocabulary we are adjusting to is not a good one. ...
8. We need to be careful with “tough.”
Donald Trump said of a protester at one of his rallies, “in the good old days they would have carried him out on a stretcher.” His world reveres this brand of toughness. This toughness is not about the strength it takes to use restraint or to make really hard decisions. It is about “punching that guy in the face,” or at a minimum, saving face ― his.
I will resist the temptation to belabor the nuclear codes point again, and rather just query do we really want a thin-skinned president who, as he suggested, if a government leader (Castro) was not on the tarmac to meet his plane, “would turn around Air Force One and come home.” ...
9. Success does matter. ...
•••••
Four business bankruptcies (1991, 1992, 2004 and 2009), the Plaza Hotel, Trump Air, all three casinos (a couple times) the steaks, the water, Trump Centre in New Jersey that I worked on, Manhattan’s West Side rail yards (where buildings do bear his name as a consolation), the much-hyped $35,000 get-rich scheme Trump University ― all failures by any measure except of course to Donald, who “has no regrets, whatsoever.”
Then there are basic business ethics: 3,500 lawsuits, the fact that he has penchant for not paying bills fully or on time, or that he calls himself the “King of Debt” ― a king made rich by running up debt, then renegotiating it. Is this the skill set we want for the president?
•••••
10. We could not be the great country we are without the First Amendment, but our media may kill us.
The media is not Donald’s enemy as he keeps announcing from the stage. It may be the enemy of the rest of us, however. It sure feels like it lately. The air time Donald gets, and his ability to phone in his rants (especially with the cable media) is nothing short of, to use one of his words, “disgusting.” ...
11. Temperament, demeanor and character are important.
In many ways, Donald represents the very worst in all of us, or at least many of us. He is all about continuous gratification. He is the petulant child who wants his way. He is the selfish teenager with no big picture yet. He is the spoiled young man of privilege with the “right” race and religion, education, good looks, and family fortune to succeed easily, and who looks down on others lacking in any of the above who do not. ...
12. The emperor and his clothes. ...
13. Sophomoric speech tricks don’t work ― at least not with most of us. ...
14. A thin skin does not work for a president. ...
15. Bullies will always exist somewhere, but the White House should not be that somewhere. ...
16. Law and order. ...
17. Incoherent rants, often contradictory, does not a foreign policy make. ...
18. How will anyone effectively be president if we don’t at least respect the office? ...
19. Rich and powerful guys have to play by the rules, too. ...
20. We must stand for something. ...
•••••
One has to wonder, what does the America of the “real Americans” look like? A bunch of intolerant, hyper aggressive, folks behind a big wall, isolated (not trading with anyone and thus with a sick economy and very expensive goods) and with a lot of enemies. No “Shining City on the Hill,” for sure. Hard to see anything but ruin ahead for such a place.
We can do so much better! For me, better comes easily in the form of former Senator and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. For those who do not come to that conclusion easily (I get it), this year it will have to be the lesser of two evils. No matter what, don’t even think about taking us into the abyss that is Donald Trump.
Sources feeding FBI rumors to Fox News and Trump campaign are spreading bad fiction
It safe to say many people who are attracted to a job with the FBI are the kind of people who would support a macho jerk like Trump.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/4/1591201/-Sources-feeding-FBI-rumors-to-Fox-News-and-Trump-campaign-are-spreading-bad-fiction
By Mark Sumner
Friday Nov 04, 2016
•••••
The FBI has never been the politics-free justice engine of Republican fantasies, but over the last two weeks, the department has lurched through a series of Trump-tinted disasters that started with Director Comey’s vaguely worded election-damaging letter and proceeded to “leaks” so bad even Fox News had to walk them back.
•••••
In some ways, the attempt of a group inside the FBI to swing the election may be the closest thing to a coup attempt the US has experienced—a faction inside the government using its power and assumed knowledge in an attempt to spread election-altering propaganda.
•••••
The incredible, bombshell leaks dripping from the FBI onto Fox’s Bret Baier included claims that Clinton’s email accounts had been hacked five times. Except ...
… as of today there are still no digital fingerprints of a breach no matter what the working assumption is within the bureau.
•••••
How Time, Space and Authority Figures Influence Your Moral Judgment
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-time-space-and-authority-figures-influence-your-moral-judgment-180956163/?no-ist
How Time, Space and Authority Figures Influence Your Moral Judgment
By Adam Hoffman
smithsonian.com
August 4, 2015
To what degree does Barack Obama or Donald Trump influence your moral judgment? Does a murder abroad carry the same moral weight as one committed at home?
Philosophers and psychologists studying moral reasoning have long argued that certain pillars of morality are largely fixed and apply universally across time and space. But work conducted by an international team of researchers now suggests that people's moral judgments are far more flexible than previously thought. The study offers insight into the ways people respond to morally troubling events, from rape to slander, and may yield clues to the level of outrage expressed by a given community.
“Human societies all have higher-order punishment, which means that we don’t just punish wrongdoers, we punish people who fail to punish wrongdoers,” says co-author Daniel Fessler, a professor of anthropology at University of California, Los Angeles. “So it is costly not to be outraged when you should be.”
•••••
For instance, most Americans would say that slavery in the South was morally wrong, says Fessler. “But when asked about slavery in ancient Greece, you quickly get the feeling that people think this is not as bad. This raises the question, where is the difference for people’s intuition coming from?”
•••••
More than 200 subjects listened to seven stories that described an action that would be considered highly immoral, such as stealing, battery or rape. After completing a comprehension test, they were asked to rate how good or bad they perceived the specified action to be. The participants were then asked to reassess their morality rating after learning that an influential leader in their community approved of it, and to consider if the action took place a long time ago or if the action took place very far away.
For each condition, members of nearly all the societies judged the previously egregious actions as less morally problematic, even when accounting for various factors such as age, sex, education level or the specific moral situation they assessed. The team presents their findings this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
So what causes this shift in attitudes? According to Fessler, moral judgments are the products of an evolved psychology that motivates people to follow and enforce a set of rules. Although it can be costly in terms of time and energy, this community-oriented psychology confers benefits upon individuals who establish a moral reputation. People seen as highly moral are more likely to be included in future cooperative ventures in the community, such as a hunt or a barn raising, that enhance their ability to survive.
But there is a time and place when it comes to enforcing moral codes. “There are few payoffs for caring a lot about things that happened far away or long ago, because passing judgments on these things is cheap talk, and the local community is not better off for the policing of those actions,” says Fessler.
Instead, someone can only obtain “moral capital” when the situation is relevant to the community and there is an actual cost to the enforcement of a moral code. Fessler gives an example in which football players illegally park in handicapped spots because they are closest to campus. Since the players pose a physical threat, anyone willing to stand up and call them out on shady behavior would receive a huge boost in moral reputation.
But when individuals continually express outrage at events far removed from the present, they dilute their moral potency and lose reputation. “Those evolved psychological mechanisms that are governing the production of moral judgment are sensitive to the payoffs,” says Fessler. “They make us feel outraged when it has positive consequences for the judge, and those are going to be things in the here and now … not something far away.”
Along similar lines, people of high importance in their respective communities, whether a tribal leader in Fiji or Majority Whip in the U.S. Congress, largely shape the interpretation of moral norms in their respective environments. That means the same psychology that seeks to boost moral reputation should also be finely attuned to the opinions of important leaders.
Fessler stresses that understanding this behavior is by no means a justification for it. “The moral psychologists and philosophers are completely right,” says Fessler. “If you think something is wrong, then you should think it is wrong everywhere and anytime. But empirically, it is the case that people are in fact morally parochialists, even if that position is philosophically indefensible.”
•••••
We really are one global community now and we have to act like it, because if we don’t, we are all in trouble," says Fessler. “Happily our psychology is already geared toward thinking about a single community. We just have to convince one another that the whole world is that community.”
How Time, Space and Authority Figures Influence Your Moral Judgment
By Adam Hoffman
smithsonian.com
August 4, 2015
To what degree does Barack Obama or Donald Trump influence your moral judgment? Does a murder abroad carry the same moral weight as one committed at home?
Philosophers and psychologists studying moral reasoning have long argued that certain pillars of morality are largely fixed and apply universally across time and space. But work conducted by an international team of researchers now suggests that people's moral judgments are far more flexible than previously thought. The study offers insight into the ways people respond to morally troubling events, from rape to slander, and may yield clues to the level of outrage expressed by a given community.
“Human societies all have higher-order punishment, which means that we don’t just punish wrongdoers, we punish people who fail to punish wrongdoers,” says co-author Daniel Fessler, a professor of anthropology at University of California, Los Angeles. “So it is costly not to be outraged when you should be.”
•••••
For instance, most Americans would say that slavery in the South was morally wrong, says Fessler. “But when asked about slavery in ancient Greece, you quickly get the feeling that people think this is not as bad. This raises the question, where is the difference for people’s intuition coming from?”
•••••
More than 200 subjects listened to seven stories that described an action that would be considered highly immoral, such as stealing, battery or rape. After completing a comprehension test, they were asked to rate how good or bad they perceived the specified action to be. The participants were then asked to reassess their morality rating after learning that an influential leader in their community approved of it, and to consider if the action took place a long time ago or if the action took place very far away.
For each condition, members of nearly all the societies judged the previously egregious actions as less morally problematic, even when accounting for various factors such as age, sex, education level or the specific moral situation they assessed. The team presents their findings this week in the Proceedings of the Royal Society B.
So what causes this shift in attitudes? According to Fessler, moral judgments are the products of an evolved psychology that motivates people to follow and enforce a set of rules. Although it can be costly in terms of time and energy, this community-oriented psychology confers benefits upon individuals who establish a moral reputation. People seen as highly moral are more likely to be included in future cooperative ventures in the community, such as a hunt or a barn raising, that enhance their ability to survive.
But there is a time and place when it comes to enforcing moral codes. “There are few payoffs for caring a lot about things that happened far away or long ago, because passing judgments on these things is cheap talk, and the local community is not better off for the policing of those actions,” says Fessler.
Instead, someone can only obtain “moral capital” when the situation is relevant to the community and there is an actual cost to the enforcement of a moral code. Fessler gives an example in which football players illegally park in handicapped spots because they are closest to campus. Since the players pose a physical threat, anyone willing to stand up and call them out on shady behavior would receive a huge boost in moral reputation.
But when individuals continually express outrage at events far removed from the present, they dilute their moral potency and lose reputation. “Those evolved psychological mechanisms that are governing the production of moral judgment are sensitive to the payoffs,” says Fessler. “They make us feel outraged when it has positive consequences for the judge, and those are going to be things in the here and now … not something far away.”
Along similar lines, people of high importance in their respective communities, whether a tribal leader in Fiji or Majority Whip in the U.S. Congress, largely shape the interpretation of moral norms in their respective environments. That means the same psychology that seeks to boost moral reputation should also be finely attuned to the opinions of important leaders.
Fessler stresses that understanding this behavior is by no means a justification for it. “The moral psychologists and philosophers are completely right,” says Fessler. “If you think something is wrong, then you should think it is wrong everywhere and anytime. But empirically, it is the case that people are in fact morally parochialists, even if that position is philosophically indefensible.”
•••••
We really are one global community now and we have to act like it, because if we don’t, we are all in trouble," says Fessler. “Happily our psychology is already geared toward thinking about a single community. We just have to convince one another that the whole world is that community.”
Trump protester: I was beaten for holding a 'Republicans against Trump' sign
Trump's rhetoric is encouraging such violence. If he is elected, it will make such action seem acceptable to many.https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/06/trump-protester-i-was-beaten-for-holding-a-republicans-against-trump-sign?CMP=share_btn_fb
Paul Lewis and Tom Silverstone in Reno, Nevada
Sunday 6 November 2016
The man whose protest saw Donald Trump rushed off the stage by Secret Service agents has said the Republican nominee’s supporters turned on him when he held up a sign reading: “Republicans against Trump.”
The man, who identified himself as Austyn Crites from Reno, told the Guardian he was holding the sign at a rally when Trump supporters wrestled him to the ground.
The 33-year-old – who says he has been a registered Republican for about six years – said he was kicked, punched and choked, and feared for his life when the crowd turned on him at the gathering in Reno, Nevada.
Crites cited Trump’s treatment of Mexicans, Muslims and women as the reason he decided to protest again Trump, who he described as “a textbook version of a dictator and a fascist”.
There were panicked scenes at the Trump rally, apparently prompted by shouts from at least one person in the crowd that the protester had a gun.
•••••
Moments later, Trump reappeared on stage and said: “Nobody said it was going to be easy but we will never be stopped. We will never be stopped.”
The US Secret Service later said in a statement that no weapon was found on the subject detained at the rally, who had been released.
The Guardian found a bruised and shocked-looking Crites outside the auditorium. He said he was shaken and had pain in the back, but was otherwise uninjured.
Crites, who said he was an inventor who works with high-altitude balloons, said the incident occurred after he walked toward the front of the stage to protest silently against Trump.
He confirmed witness descriptions of him moving through the crowd toward the front. However, he said he was not barging through but saying: “Can I please come through, can I please come through.”
When he was near the front of the crowd, he said he silently held aloft his sign.
I had a sign that said ‘Republicans against Trump’. It is a sign that you can just print off online
Austyn Crites, protester
“I had a sign that said ‘Republicans against Trump.’ It is a sign that you can just print off online.”
Initially, there was the expected reaction of people around him booing, he said. “And then all of a sudden people next to me are starting to get violent; they’re grabbing at my arm, trying to rip the sign out of my hand,” he said.
He said he could not be sure but “it looked like” Trump was pointing at him, and may have been “instigating something”. Either way, the crowd piled on him, he said, kicking, punching, holding him on the ground and grabbing his testicles.
He said he was a wrestler in his youth and used his training to turn his head to the side to maintain an airway open as he was being choked by one man who had him in a headlock. “But there were people wrenching on my neck they could have strangled me to death,” he added.
Crites said when he was on the ground he heard someone yell “something about a gun” and he kept telling those on top of him that he had merely been holding a sign.
•••••
For his part, Crites said he felt relieved when police arrived and placed him in handcuffs, but said officers had to fend off Trump supporters who continued to attack him. “As I was taken from the room, people are just looking at me like I’m a demon,” he said.
•••••
Although he described himself as a Republican and fiscal conservative, Crites said he had canvassed “for a few hours” with the Clinton campaign in Nevada because he wanted to do all he could to prevent a Trump presidency
He said he was not fully supportive of Clinton but believed she was the only candidate who could stop Trump from reaching the White House.
Advertisement
Crites said he had not formal connection to the Clinton campaign and decided to attend the rally on his own volition.
“Evan [Evan] McMullin is someone I also support,” he said of the independent conservative standing for president on many states, and added that he backed Trump’s Republican opponents during the primaries. “John Kasich, for example, was a great candidate.”
Crites said he felt Trump supporters were well-meaning but simply misguided by Trump’s demagoguery. “He’s fascist, he’s a dictator,” he said of the Republican nominee, saying such leaders turn normal people “into animals”.
While he was surprised at what occurred at the rally, Crites he said he did not blame the crowd for his treatment. “I like these people,” he said. “These are my fellow Americans. I love these people. I understand that they came here because they’re patriotic, they want to do good for their country.”
He added: “The people who attacked me – I’m not blaming them. I’m blaming Donald Trump’s hate rhetoric.”
“My heart still aches for what this nation could potentially do by electing him,” he added. “That hurts me much more than any of this violence.”
“The fact that I got beat up today, that’s just showing what he’s doing to his crowds. But I just want people to understand I’m going to be OK, but now what’s more important is if the country going to be OK? So do your part and vote.”
[My inclination is that Trump is to blame. But these people believe in free will. If you point out that almost all violent criminals were abused as children, they usually say they should have gotten over it. By their own standards, they are fully responsible for acting like barbaric thugs.]
Saturday, November 05, 2016
Older adolescents and adults can learn certain thinking skills including non-verbal reasoning more effectively than younger people
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/ucl-odb110216.php
Public Release: 4-Nov-2016
Older dogs better at learning new tricks
Older adolescents and adults can learn certain thinking skills including non-verbal reasoning more effectively than younger people
University College London
Older adolescents and adults can learn certain thinking skills including non-verbal reasoning more effectively than younger people, finds new UCL (University College London) research.
The study, published in Psychological Science, also highlights the fact that non-verbal reasoning skills can be readily trained and do not represent an innate, fixed ability.
"Although adults and older adolescents benefitted most from training in non-verbal reasoning, the average test score for adolescents aged 11-13 improved from 60% to 70% following three weeks of ten-minute online training sessions," says senior author Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore (UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience). "This calls into question the claim that entry tests for selective schools that include non-verbal reasoning 'assess the true potential of every child'."
•••••
"We find that these cognitive skills, which are related to mathematics performance, show greater training effects in late adolescence than earlier in adolescence," explains co-lead author Dr Lisa Knoll. "These findings highlight the relevance of this late developmental stage for education and challenge the assumption that earlier is always better for learning. We find that fundamental cognitive skills related to mathematics can be significantly trained in late adolescence."
At the testing stages, volunteers were tested on various tasks, not just the ones they had trained in, to see if the training effects transferred to other skills. No transfer effects were observed, suggesting that the effect of training was specific to each task.
•••••
Public Release: 4-Nov-2016
Older dogs better at learning new tricks
Older adolescents and adults can learn certain thinking skills including non-verbal reasoning more effectively than younger people
University College London
Older adolescents and adults can learn certain thinking skills including non-verbal reasoning more effectively than younger people, finds new UCL (University College London) research.
The study, published in Psychological Science, also highlights the fact that non-verbal reasoning skills can be readily trained and do not represent an innate, fixed ability.
"Although adults and older adolescents benefitted most from training in non-verbal reasoning, the average test score for adolescents aged 11-13 improved from 60% to 70% following three weeks of ten-minute online training sessions," says senior author Professor Sarah-Jayne Blakemore (UCL Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience). "This calls into question the claim that entry tests for selective schools that include non-verbal reasoning 'assess the true potential of every child'."
•••••
"We find that these cognitive skills, which are related to mathematics performance, show greater training effects in late adolescence than earlier in adolescence," explains co-lead author Dr Lisa Knoll. "These findings highlight the relevance of this late developmental stage for education and challenge the assumption that earlier is always better for learning. We find that fundamental cognitive skills related to mathematics can be significantly trained in late adolescence."
At the testing stages, volunteers were tested on various tasks, not just the ones they had trained in, to see if the training effects transferred to other skills. No transfer effects were observed, suggesting that the effect of training was specific to each task.
•••••
Fake Tweets, real consequences for the election
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/uosc-ftr110416.php
Public Release: 4-Nov-2016
Fake Tweets, real consequences for the election
A USC Viterbi School of Engineering Computer Scientist worries that robot-generated tweets could compromise the presidential election
University of Southern California
Software robots masquerading as humans are influencing the political discourse on social media as never before and could threaten the very integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said Emilio Ferrara, a computer scientist and research leader at the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI), and USC Viterbi School of Engineering research assistant professor.
By leveraging state-of-the art bot detection algorithms, Ferrara and co-author Alessandro Bessi, a visiting research assistant at USC's ISI, have made a startling discovery: a surprisingly high percentage of the political discussion taking place on Twitter was created by pro-Donald Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton software robots, or social bots, with the express purpose of distorting the online discussion regarding the elections.
The researchers analyzed 20 million election-related tweets created between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21. They found that robots, rather than people, produced 3.8 million tweets, or 19 percent. Social bots also accounted for 400,000 of the 2.8 million individual users, or nearly 15 percent of the population under study.
"The presence of these bots can affect the dynamics of the political discussion in three tangible ways," writes in a recently released paper titled, "Social Bots Distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Online Discussion," appearing the journal First Monday.
"First, influence can be redistributed across suspicious accounts that may be operated with malicious purposes. Second, the political conversation can become further polarized. Third, spreading of misinformation and unverified information can be enhanced."
"As a result, the integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election could be possibly endangered."
•••••
The "master puppeteers" behind influence bots, Ferrara added, often create fake Twitter and Facebook profiles. They do so by stealing online pictures, giving them fictitious names, and cloning biographical information from existing accounts. These bots have become so sophisticated that they can tweet, retweet, share content, comment on posts, "like" candidates, grow their social influence by following legitimate human accounts and even engage in human-like conversations.
•••••
Public Release: 4-Nov-2016
Fake Tweets, real consequences for the election
A USC Viterbi School of Engineering Computer Scientist worries that robot-generated tweets could compromise the presidential election
University of Southern California
Software robots masquerading as humans are influencing the political discourse on social media as never before and could threaten the very integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election, said Emilio Ferrara, a computer scientist and research leader at the USC Information Sciences Institute (ISI), and USC Viterbi School of Engineering research assistant professor.
By leveraging state-of-the art bot detection algorithms, Ferrara and co-author Alessandro Bessi, a visiting research assistant at USC's ISI, have made a startling discovery: a surprisingly high percentage of the political discussion taking place on Twitter was created by pro-Donald Trump and pro-Hillary Clinton software robots, or social bots, with the express purpose of distorting the online discussion regarding the elections.
The researchers analyzed 20 million election-related tweets created between Sept. 16 and Oct. 21. They found that robots, rather than people, produced 3.8 million tweets, or 19 percent. Social bots also accounted for 400,000 of the 2.8 million individual users, or nearly 15 percent of the population under study.
"The presence of these bots can affect the dynamics of the political discussion in three tangible ways," writes in a recently released paper titled, "Social Bots Distort the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Online Discussion," appearing the journal First Monday.
"First, influence can be redistributed across suspicious accounts that may be operated with malicious purposes. Second, the political conversation can become further polarized. Third, spreading of misinformation and unverified information can be enhanced."
"As a result, the integrity of the 2016 U.S. presidential election could be possibly endangered."
•••••
The "master puppeteers" behind influence bots, Ferrara added, often create fake Twitter and Facebook profiles. They do so by stealing online pictures, giving them fictitious names, and cloning biographical information from existing accounts. These bots have become so sophisticated that they can tweet, retweet, share content, comment on posts, "like" candidates, grow their social influence by following legitimate human accounts and even engage in human-like conversations.
•••••
Trump surrogate Giuliani admits he received inside scoop from FBI
Probably the same people in the FBI who infiltrate peaceful groups and try to influence them take action that would make them look bad.
I think it's a safe assumption that some people are attracted to a job with the FBI because they are the kind of people who would admire Trump.
11/04/16 04:21 PM
By Steve Benen
A week ago, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress that effectively intervened in the presidential campaign. Two days earlier, Rudy Giuliani, one of Donald Trump’s surrogates, told Fox News that the Republican ticket had “a surprise or two that you’re going to hear about in the next few days.”
Giuliani added that he was “talking about some pretty big surprises” that “should turn [the presidential campaign] around.” He added, “I think it will be enormously effective.”
With the benefit of hindsight, we now know, of course, what the former mayor was referring to. But it raises a fairly obvious question: how’d the Trump campaign know what the FBI intended to do and when the bureau would do it?
As the Huffington Post noted this morning, Giuliani appeared on Fox and explained what happened.
Rudy Giuliani said Friday that he knew the FBI planned to review more emails tied to Hillary Clinton before a public announcement about the investigation last week, confirming that the agency leaked information to Donald Trump’s presidential campaign. […]
“I did nothing to get it out, I had no role in it,” he said. “Did I hear about it? You’re darn right I heard about it, and I can’t even repeat the language that I heard from the former FBI agents.”
It’s worth emphasizing that Giuliani said he didn’t speak to active FBI officials, only former bureau agents*.
But that only helps as a matter of degree. FBI officials didn’t give the Trump campaign advance warning about a campaign bombshell, but FBI officials did tell former FBI officials, who in turn gave the Trump campaign advance warning about a campaign bombshell.
We’re no longer talking about speculation. This isn’t an instance in which the Clinton campaign is accusing the FBI of tipping off a top official in the Trump campaign. Rather, we’re now talking about an admission from Trump’s top surrogates, who bragged about it on national television. “You’re darn right” Giuliani got a tip from inside the bureau, receiving internal details despite his partisan role in the election.
•••••
Thursday, November 03, 2016
Judge: North Carolina Voter Challenge Process Seems 'Insane'
If Republicans thought they could win fairly, they wouldn't use dirty tricks.http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/naacp-nc-back-court-time-voter-challenges-43238181
By martha waggoner and jonathan drew, associated press
WINSTON-SALEM, N.C. — Nov 2, 2016
North Carolina's process for challenging voters' registration seems to harken to a bygone era when fewer safeguards were in place, a federal judge said Wednesday as she presided over a lawsuit that alleges voters are being purged unfairly.
Lawyers for North Carolina countered that state data shows only a sliver of names have been removed from county rolls in the past two years — fewer than 7,000 statewide out of 6.8 million registered voters.
The comments came during an emergency hearing over NAACP allegations that at least three counties purged voter rolls through a process disproportionately targeting blacks
Early voting is already underway in the critical swing state that the NAACP has previously sued over other voter access issues. So far, North Carolina's black voter turnout has lagged the 2012 presidential election.
The NAACP says counties are violating federal law by removing voters less than 90 days before the election. However, state officials say the process complements federal law and preserves due-process rights.
U.S. District Judge Loretta Biggs said the process sounds "insane."
"This sounds like something that was put together in 1901," she told lawyers for the state.
Biggs also said she was "horrified" by the number of removals in Cumberland County, which accounted for most of the statewide total.
"It almost looks like a cattle call, the way people are being purged," she told county attorney Rick Moorefield.
He replied that board members didn't like the process, "but they felt compelled to follow the statute."
The hearing ended without a ruling, but Biggs acknowledged time was dwindling before next week's election.
•••••
The U.S. Justice Department said in a court filing that if the NAACP allegations are true, they represent violations of the National Voter Registration Act.
The Justice Department writes that counties can't remove voters "using only mail returned as undeliverable and without following specific required procedures," nor can they carry out "systematic removals within 90 days of a Federal election."
The NAACP lawsuit comes during a protracted battle over voter access in the state. In July, a federal court struck down much of a 2013 elections law, saying the GOP-controlled General Assembly had disproportionately targeted black voters. The ruling lengthened in-person early voting by a week and eliminated a photo ID requirement for in-person voting.
That ruling sparked disagreements among local Democratic and Republican election officials about the number of sites and hours for early voting.
Through Tuesday, blacks' early voting participation in North Carolina lagged behind the same point in the 2012 election by 13 percent, said Catawba College political scientist Michael Bitzer. Black voters regained some ground after more voting sites opened last week, but he said it's unclear if they can close the gap before early voting ends Saturday.
•••••
Catholic parish's bulletin says Democratic voters are doomed to hell, Clinton is satanic
http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/news/politics/sd-me-church-bulletin-20161102-story.html
Joshua Stewart
Nov. 2, 2016
Between requests for prayers for the sick and a notice for an upcoming chastity luncheon, a newsletter from a Catholic church in Old Town that doubles as an election-day polling site included a flier that told parishioners they’ll go to hell if they vote for Democrats.
Two Sundays later, the message had changed: Satan was working through former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
The Oct. 16 bulletin from the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church was stuffed with a flyer written in both English and Spanish that cited five legislative policies — support for abortion, same-sex marriage, euthanasia, human cloning, and embryonic stem cell research — that will doom a politician and their supporters to eternal damnation.
“It is a mortal sin to vote Democrat … immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell,” the flyer said.
•••••
The political messages continued as early voting began and the election drew closer. An article in the Oct. 30 the church bulletin claimed that Clinton is influenced by Satan.
•••••
Clinton, speaking at the Women in the World Summit, was actually talking about eliminating cultural barriers that prevent girls from attending elementary school and women from attending college, as well as obstacles that stand between enforcement of domestic violence laws and access to reproductive and maternal healthcare.
Lawyers who study churches and other nonprofit organizations said the statements violate regulations that prevent tax-exempt groups from speaking in support or against political candidates.
The Roman Catholic Diocese of San Diego on Wednesday said the messages in the flier and bulletin do not reflect Catholic teaching or diocese policies, are inappropriate, and that voters should use their conscience to determine which candidates to support.
“It’s not a mortal sin to vote for Democrats, number one. And number two, the church doesn’t take positions on this, and we’re not going to,” diocese spokesman Kevin Eckery said.
In a speech Tuesday at the Center for Catholic Thought and Culture at the University of San Diego, Bishop Robert McElroy stressed the importance both for his faith and for the country of religious leaders like himself staying out of candidate elections.
“I speak to you tonight as a bishop who is part of a long tradition in Catholic episcopal leadership in the United States which holds that both the Church and society are best served when bishops refrain from publicly endorsing or favoring, either directly or indirectly, specific candidates in partisan elections,” a transcript of his address says.
The diocese said the flier was not authorized by the parish, but it was somehow inserted into the Oct. 16 bulletin.
“For all I know someone thought that they were doing a service,” by putting it into the bulletin, Eckery said. “The pastor said it was not something he had reviewed or approved.”
•••••
The morality of either political party is far from agreed upon among the Catholic clergy and lay people, and likewise, there are Catholics in all levels of government across party lines. There have been two priests in Congress — both were Democrats. There have likewise been two Catholics in the executive branch, Vice President Joe Biden and President John F. Kennedy, also Democrats. Also, Rep. Juan Vargas, D-San Diego, and Gov. Jerry Brown, also a Democrat, both studied to become Jesuit priests.
•••••
San Francisco sues developer over sinking skyscraper
Yes the rich are truly job creators. Fixing this will required hiring people. Don't be surprised if the developer declares bankruptcy, leaving others, maybe eventually taxpayers, with the bill to fix it.http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-sinking-skyscraper-20161103-story.html
Associated Press
Nov. 3, 2016
San Francisco has sued the developer of a sinking and tilting luxury high-rise, saying the developers knew about the problems but did not disclose the information to potential home buyers as required by law.
Millennium Tower was completed eight years ago and so far has sunk 16 inches into the soft soil of San Francisco's crowded Financial District, causing a 2-inch tilt at the base and a 6-inch lean at the top.
City Atty. Dennis Herrera filed the lawsuit against Mission Street Developers LLC, saying the developers knew about the problems with the mirrored, 58-story building but did not tell potential home buyers about them as required by law.
Mission Street Developers says it complied with all state and local laws concerning the disclosure of information to prospective buyers.
3 Ways to Tell if a Music Company Is Scamming You
http://blog.sonicbids.com/is-it-a-scam
Dan Reifsnyder
Oct 31, 2016
While there are many reputable companies and organizations in the music industry – in fact, the vast majority are on the up and up – there are a few that like to prey on the unaware. While I can't give specific names (and even if I could, there are likely ones that haven't hit the radar yet), here are three hallmarks to watch out for to know whether or not you're about to get scammed.
1. It's too good to be true
You've never been to Nashville, never even sent off one demo in that direction, and yet, a supposed label contacts you out of the blue and wants to sign you. It may work that way in the movies, but there's pretty much a zero-percent chance of that happening in real life.
•••••
2. They want money upfront
They're a publishing house and want to record your songs for a substantial fee in order to pitch them; sometimes that fee is in the thousands (a great Nashville demo should cost $1,000 max). Or they're some other professional – say, an agent or manager – who will add you to a roster for a fee.
That's not how the industry works. Publishers, agents, managers, labels, etc. all make money on the back end by taking a percentage of the profits. Nobody asks you to front money.
There are exceptions, however. If you're an indie artist, producers need to be paid by somebody (and that's usually you). Membership fees are legit as well (provided the company associated with them is).
3. Their promises are unrealistic
Nobody in town can promise you a guaranteed number-one hit or a cut with a specific artist (unless you happen to be writing with that artist, then it's a possibility). In fact, the most I've gotten is, “Well, so-and-so is looking. Let me see what I can do.” But again, no direct promises, because it just doesn't work that way.
I've heard horror stories of scam artists asking big money to pitch songs and then straight-up lying to the writer that the project was on hold or that the song had been recorded, or that the track was even being pitched at all.
Be sure to ask what someone's track record is: what recent cuts has he or she gotten? What artists/managers/labels does he or she have relationships with? If that person's evasive, that's a red flag.
The exception are “song pluggers” that are legit. These are independent individuals who aren't really publishers but try to get songs placed. Generally speaking, they don't ask for an upfront fee. They're 100 percent above board though, have long track records, and are straightforward and honest about what they can do.
Remember, just because someone has an office on Music Row doesn't necessarily mean that person's legit – it just means he or she can afford it. Always ask questions, and be cautious of anything “too good to be true” or red flags in someone's track record. Don't be afraid to check with places like ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, and the Songwriters Guild. They can often tell you if something sounds right or not.
Dan Reifsnyder
Oct 31, 2016
While there are many reputable companies and organizations in the music industry – in fact, the vast majority are on the up and up – there are a few that like to prey on the unaware. While I can't give specific names (and even if I could, there are likely ones that haven't hit the radar yet), here are three hallmarks to watch out for to know whether or not you're about to get scammed.
1. It's too good to be true
You've never been to Nashville, never even sent off one demo in that direction, and yet, a supposed label contacts you out of the blue and wants to sign you. It may work that way in the movies, but there's pretty much a zero-percent chance of that happening in real life.
•••••
2. They want money upfront
They're a publishing house and want to record your songs for a substantial fee in order to pitch them; sometimes that fee is in the thousands (a great Nashville demo should cost $1,000 max). Or they're some other professional – say, an agent or manager – who will add you to a roster for a fee.
That's not how the industry works. Publishers, agents, managers, labels, etc. all make money on the back end by taking a percentage of the profits. Nobody asks you to front money.
There are exceptions, however. If you're an indie artist, producers need to be paid by somebody (and that's usually you). Membership fees are legit as well (provided the company associated with them is).
3. Their promises are unrealistic
Nobody in town can promise you a guaranteed number-one hit or a cut with a specific artist (unless you happen to be writing with that artist, then it's a possibility). In fact, the most I've gotten is, “Well, so-and-so is looking. Let me see what I can do.” But again, no direct promises, because it just doesn't work that way.
I've heard horror stories of scam artists asking big money to pitch songs and then straight-up lying to the writer that the project was on hold or that the song had been recorded, or that the track was even being pitched at all.
Be sure to ask what someone's track record is: what recent cuts has he or she gotten? What artists/managers/labels does he or she have relationships with? If that person's evasive, that's a red flag.
The exception are “song pluggers” that are legit. These are independent individuals who aren't really publishers but try to get songs placed. Generally speaking, they don't ask for an upfront fee. They're 100 percent above board though, have long track records, and are straightforward and honest about what they can do.
Remember, just because someone has an office on Music Row doesn't necessarily mean that person's legit – it just means he or she can afford it. Always ask questions, and be cautious of anything “too good to be true” or red flags in someone's track record. Don't be afraid to check with places like ASCAP, SESAC, BMI, and the Songwriters Guild. They can often tell you if something sounds right or not.
The scientists who make apps addictive
A long article, interesting & informative.https://www.1843magazine.com/features/the-scientists-who-make-apps-addictive
•••••
Fogg called for a new field, sitting at the intersection of computer science and psychology, and proposed a name for it: “captology” (Computers as Persuasive Technologies). Captology later became behaviour design, which is now embedded into the invisible operating system of our everyday lives. The emails that induce you to buy right away, the apps and games that rivet your attention, the online forms that nudge you towards one decision over another: all are designed to hack the human brain and capitalise on its instincts, quirks and flaws. The techniques they use are often crude and blatantly manipulative, but they are getting steadily more refined, and, as they do so, less noticeable.
Fogg’s Atlanta talk provoked strong responses from his audience, falling into two groups: either “This is dangerous. It’s like giving people the tools to construct an atomic bomb”; or “This is amazing. It could be worth billions of dollars.”
The second group has certainly been proved right. Fogg has been called “the millionaire maker”. Numerous Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and engineers have passed through his laboratory at Stanford, and some have made themselves wealthy.
Fogg himself has not made millions of dollars from his insights. He stayed at Stanford, and now does little commercial work. He is increasingly troubled by the thought that those who told him his ideas were dangerous may have been on to something.
•••••
Fogg introduced me to one of his former students, Noelle Moseley, who now consults for technology companies. She told me that she had recently interviewed heavy users of Instagram: young women who cultivated different personas on different social networks. Their aim was to get as many followers as possible – that was their definition of success. Every new follow and every comment delivered an emotional hit. But a life spent chasing hits didn’t feel good. Moseley’s respondents spent all their hours thinking about how to organise their lives in order to take pictures they could post to each persona, which meant they weren’t able to enjoy whatever they were doing, which made them stressed and unhappy. “It was like a sickness,” said Moseley.
B.J. Fogg comes from a Mormon family, which has endowed him with his bulletproof geniality and also with a strong need to believe that his work is making the world a better place. The only times during our conversations when his tone darkened were when he considered the misuse of his ideas in the commercial sphere. He worries that companies like Instagram and Facebook are using behaviour design merely to keep consumers in thrall to them. One of his alumni, Nir Eyal, went on to write a successful book, aimed at tech entrepreneurs, called “Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products”.
“I look at some of my former students and I wonder if they’re really trying to make the world better, or just make money,” said Fogg. “What I always wanted to do was un-enslave people from technology.”
When B.F. Skinner performed further experiments with his box, he discovered that if the rat got the same reward each time, it pulled the lever only when it was hungry. The way to maximise the number of times the rat pulled the lever was to vary the rewards it received. If it didn’t know whether it was going to get one pellet, or none, or several when it pulled the lever, then it pulled the lever over and over again. It became psychologically hooked. This became known as the principle of variable rewards.
In “Hooked”, Eyal argues that successful digital products incorporate Skinner’s insight. Facebook, Pinterest and others tap into basic human needs for connection, approval and affirmation, and dispense their rewards on a variable schedule. Every time we open Instagram or Snapchat or Tinder, we never know if someone will have liked our photo, or left a comment, or written a funny status update, or dropped us a message. So we keep tapping the red dot, swiping left and scrolling down.
•••••
The casinos aim to maximise what they call “time-on-device”. The environment in which the machines sit is designed to keep people playing. Gamblers can order drinks and food from the screen. Lighting, decor, noise levels, even the way the machines smell – everything is meticulously calibrated. Not just the brightness, but also the angle of the lighting is deliberate: research has found that light drains gamblers’ energy fastest when it hits their foreheads.
But it is the variation in rewards that is the key to time-on-device. The machines are programmed to create near misses: winning symbols appear just above or below the “payline” far more often than chance alone would dictate. The player’s losses are thus reframed as potential wins, motivating her to try again. Mathematicians design payout schedules to ensure that people keep playing while they steadily lose money. Alternative schedules are matched to different types of players, with differing appetites for risk: some gamblers are drawn towards the possibility of big wins and big losses, others prefer a drip-feed of little payouts (as a game designer told Schüll, “Some people want to be bled slowly”). The mathematicians are constantly refining their models and experimenting with new ones, wrapping their formulae around the contours of the cerebral cortex.
•••••
Things that aren’t important to a person are bound up with things that are very important: the machine on which you play games and read celebrity gossip is the one on which you’ll find out if your daughter has fallen ill. So you can’t turn it off or leave it behind.
•••••
Radio Still Accounts for Almost Half of Music Listening
Oct. 31, 2016
While streaming music has certainly taken off over the last few years, radio continues to reign as the go-to music listening format and device for US consumers. According to October research, almost half of time spent listening to music happens on AM/FM radio, followed by owned music and then streaming platforms, like Pandora and Spotify.
In May 2016, Edison Research studied more than 8,500 US consumers ages 13 and older and how much time they spent listening to music.
Almost half (or 44%) of all time spent listening to music was spent on the AM/FM radio format, followed by listening to music participants had purchased (including CDs and digital music files) at 18%. Streaming accounted for 17% of music listening time.
Devicewise, AM/FM radio came on top again. More than 40% of music listening time was spent with traditional radio receivers. Meanwhile, 23% was spent with mobile devices and 16% with desktop and laptop PCs.
•••••
Most Voters Haven’t Changed Their Minds All Year
Nov 2, 2016 at 5:33 PM
By Dan Hopkins
For many Americans, and not a few journalists, this election can’t end soon enough. Fifty-nine percent of Americans reported that they were “exhausted” by election coverage — and that was in early summer. Since then, those following the campaign have been drinking from a fire hose of election news: the conventions, the Khan family, Hillary Clinton’s pneumonia and stumble, Donald Trump’s taxes and the Access Hollywood tape, and James Comey’s latest announcement, to name just a few.
But how much have these story lines actually changed the race? That’s a hot topic these days, with some polls showing dramatic swings toward Trump while others have hardly budged. Writing at YouGov, Ben Lauderdale and Doug Rivers make the case that a lot of what we are seeing is driven by changes in who responds to surveys, not in who voters intend to support. If so, this presidential race might be more stable than you would think by looking at polls on a given day.
•••••
I’ve been conducting the Institute for the Study of Citizens and Politics panel, a survey which has asked the same respondents questions about politics over almost nine years. So we know what our respondents thought, both in January/February 2016, just before and after the Iowa caucuses, and in mid-October, when our last wave of the survey was fielded. (One caveat: Since the panel began more than eight years ago, we are missing any Americans who are now under age 26, making this poll likely to skew slightly against Clinton.)
•••••
There is very little movement between the two major-party candidates. 0.5 percent of respondents were with Clinton in January and are now with Trump, while only 1.5 percent of our respondents moved from Trump to Clinton. There is far more movement from not supporting either candidate to backing one than from supporting one major-party candidate to supporting the other. That, in turn, stabilizes the horse race to some degree: Voters who can be persuaded to switch sides are twice as influential, since they affect both candidates’ tallies simultaneously.
•••••
Of course, this evidence does not imply that people’s preferences have remained fixed since January. It could well be that all of the negative news cycles surrounding accusations of sexual assault and poor debate performances by Trump meant that our mid-October survey caught him at his low-water mark, one that happened to match opinions at the outset of primary voting. It’s also key to acknowledge that the people who remain in a panel for years may differ from others, and that, too, could lend their views a stability not found in the broader electorate. But from these respondents alone, we see an electorate that appears surprisingly stable.
•••••
Wednesday, November 02, 2016
Prescription of psychotropic medication after prison release linked to lower rate of violent reoffending
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/tjnj-pop102816.php
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
Prescription of psychotropic medication after prison release linked to lower rate of violent reoffending
The JAMA Network Journals
Among released prisoners in Sweden, rates of violent reoffending were lower during periods when individuals were dispensed antipsychotics, psychostimulants, and drugs for addictive disorders, compared with periods in which they were not dispensed these medications, according to a study appearing in the November 1 issue of JAMA.
•••••
The study included 22,275 released prisoners (average age, 38 years; 92 percent male). During follow-up (median, 4.6 years), 4,031 individuals (18 percent) had 5,653 violent reoffenses. The researchers found that three classes of psychotropic medications were associated with substantial reductions in violent reoffending: antipsychotics, a 42 percent reduction; psychostimulants, 38 percent; and drugs used in addictive disorders, a 52 percent reduction. In contrast, antidepressants and antiepileptics were not significantly associated with violent reoffending rates.
Analyses also demonstrated that completion of psychological treatments targeting general criminal attitudes and substance abuse was associated with reductions in violent reoffending. The associations with these psychological programs were not stronger than those for medications.
•••••
"The absolute numbers of prisoners with psychiatric disorders are large worldwide, and most individuals who could benefit from psychotropic treatment do not receive it after prison release.
•••••
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
Prescription of psychotropic medication after prison release linked to lower rate of violent reoffending
The JAMA Network Journals
Among released prisoners in Sweden, rates of violent reoffending were lower during periods when individuals were dispensed antipsychotics, psychostimulants, and drugs for addictive disorders, compared with periods in which they were not dispensed these medications, according to a study appearing in the November 1 issue of JAMA.
•••••
The study included 22,275 released prisoners (average age, 38 years; 92 percent male). During follow-up (median, 4.6 years), 4,031 individuals (18 percent) had 5,653 violent reoffenses. The researchers found that three classes of psychotropic medications were associated with substantial reductions in violent reoffending: antipsychotics, a 42 percent reduction; psychostimulants, 38 percent; and drugs used in addictive disorders, a 52 percent reduction. In contrast, antidepressants and antiepileptics were not significantly associated with violent reoffending rates.
Analyses also demonstrated that completion of psychological treatments targeting general criminal attitudes and substance abuse was associated with reductions in violent reoffending. The associations with these psychological programs were not stronger than those for medications.
•••••
"The absolute numbers of prisoners with psychiatric disorders are large worldwide, and most individuals who could benefit from psychotropic treatment do not receive it after prison release.
•••••
Up to one egg per day associated with 12 percent reduced risk of stroke
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/enc-oep102816.php
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
One egg per day associated with 12 percent reduced risk of stroke
Protein and antioxidants found in eggs named as potential nutritional factors
Egg Nutrition Center
On the heels of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans that placed no daily limit on dietary cholesterol and noted eggs are an affordable, accessible, nutrient-rich source of high quality protein, new research shows eggs are associated with a 12 percent reduction in the risk of stroke, the 5th leading cause of death in the United States.
The study is published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition (1). Researchers report that consumption of up to one egg per day had no association with coronary heart disease (CHD) and a 12 percent reduction of stroke risk.
•••••
"Eggs do have many positive nutritional attributes, including antioxidants, which have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and inflammation. They are also an excellent source of protein, which has been related to lower blood pressure."
One large egg boasts 6 grams of high-quality protein and antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin, found within the egg yolk, as well as vitamins E, D, and A.
•••••
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
One egg per day associated with 12 percent reduced risk of stroke
Protein and antioxidants found in eggs named as potential nutritional factors
Egg Nutrition Center
On the heels of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans that placed no daily limit on dietary cholesterol and noted eggs are an affordable, accessible, nutrient-rich source of high quality protein, new research shows eggs are associated with a 12 percent reduction in the risk of stroke, the 5th leading cause of death in the United States.
The study is published in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition (1). Researchers report that consumption of up to one egg per day had no association with coronary heart disease (CHD) and a 12 percent reduction of stroke risk.
•••••
"Eggs do have many positive nutritional attributes, including antioxidants, which have been shown to reduce oxidative stress and inflammation. They are also an excellent source of protein, which has been related to lower blood pressure."
One large egg boasts 6 grams of high-quality protein and antioxidants lutein and zeaxanthin, found within the egg yolk, as well as vitamins E, D, and A.
•••••
Research review confirms positive school climates can narrow achievement gaps
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/aera-rrc110116.php
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
Research review confirms positive school climates can narrow achievement gaps
Researchers call for common definition and measurement of school climate variables
American Educational Research Association
Positive school climates contribute to academic achievement and can improve outcomes for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, according to a new study published today in Review of Educational Research, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.
In a comprehensive analysis of research published since 2000, U.S. and Israeli researchers found substantial evidence that schools with positive climates can narrow achievement gaps among students of different socioeconomic backgrounds and between students with stronger and weaker academic abilities.
Broadly speaking, positive school climates are marked by a supportive, caring approach from teachers; a sense of safety from violence and bullying; student connectedness in school; and parental involvement.
"Our analysis of more than 15 years' worth of research shows that schools do matter and can do much to improve academic outcomes," said study co-author Ron Avi Astor, a professor of social work and education at the University of Southern California. "Our findings suggest that by promoting a positive climate, schools can allow greater equality in educational opportunities, decrease socioeconomic inequalities, and enable more social mobility."
The analysis also found no correlation between socioeconomic status and perceptions of school climate. This suggests that schools serving students of lower socioeconomic status do not necessarily have poor climates and that positive climates can be nurtured in these schools.
"Positive school climate has the potential to break the negative influences that stem from poor socioeconomic backgrounds and to mitigate risk factors that threaten academic achievement," said co-author Ruth Berkowitz, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Haifa, Israel. "Evidence-based interventions that support and improve school climate are critically important to efforts around the world to increase educational opportunity for disadvantaged students and schools."
•••••
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
Research review confirms positive school climates can narrow achievement gaps
Researchers call for common definition and measurement of school climate variables
American Educational Research Association
Positive school climates contribute to academic achievement and can improve outcomes for students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, according to a new study published today in Review of Educational Research, a peer-reviewed journal of the American Educational Research Association.
In a comprehensive analysis of research published since 2000, U.S. and Israeli researchers found substantial evidence that schools with positive climates can narrow achievement gaps among students of different socioeconomic backgrounds and between students with stronger and weaker academic abilities.
Broadly speaking, positive school climates are marked by a supportive, caring approach from teachers; a sense of safety from violence and bullying; student connectedness in school; and parental involvement.
"Our analysis of more than 15 years' worth of research shows that schools do matter and can do much to improve academic outcomes," said study co-author Ron Avi Astor, a professor of social work and education at the University of Southern California. "Our findings suggest that by promoting a positive climate, schools can allow greater equality in educational opportunities, decrease socioeconomic inequalities, and enable more social mobility."
The analysis also found no correlation between socioeconomic status and perceptions of school climate. This suggests that schools serving students of lower socioeconomic status do not necessarily have poor climates and that positive climates can be nurtured in these schools.
"Positive school climate has the potential to break the negative influences that stem from poor socioeconomic backgrounds and to mitigate risk factors that threaten academic achievement," said co-author Ruth Berkowitz, an assistant professor of social work at the University of Haifa, Israel. "Evidence-based interventions that support and improve school climate are critically important to efforts around the world to increase educational opportunity for disadvantaged students and schools."
•••••
Exercise and healthy diets associated with better cognitive functioning
No surprise, but being reminded can motivate us to keep to healthy habits.https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/oupu-eah110116.php
Public Release: 1-Nov-2016
Exercise and healthy diets associated with better cognitive functioning
Oxford University Press USA
Findings published this week in the Journal of Public Health reveal that both younger and older Canadian adults who engage in regular physical activity, consume more fruits and vegetables and are normal weight or overweight have overall better cognitive functioning.
Regular engagement in physical activity and healthy eating has long been associated with a reduced risk for a range of chronic conditions. For older adults, there is a growing body of evidence that exercising may delay the onset of cognitive decline. Similarly, compounds found in fruits and vegetables have been shown to fight illnesses and help maintain healthy processes in the body. Given the increasing rates of inactivity and obesity in the world, researchers are interested in understanding the relationship between clusters of risk factors for cognitive decline, and how lifestyle factors might help prevent or delay it.
Previous studies in Spain and Korea have shown that older adults who eat more fruits and vegetables perform better in mentally stimulating activities than older adults who report eating a lower amount. However, very few studies have investigated the relationships between physical activity and eating fruit and vegetables and the effect it has on the brain for both younger and older adults.
•••••
An overlooked source of carbon emissions
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/acs-aos102816.php
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
An overlooked source of carbon emissions
American Chemical Society
Nations that pledged to carry out the Paris climate agreement have moved forward to find practical ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including efforts to ban hydrofluorocarbons and set stricter fuel-efficiency standards. Now scientists report in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology that one source of carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas, has been overlooked: wastewater treatment plants. Based on their findings, they recommend actions that could curb emissions from this source.
Linda Y. Tseng, currently at Colgate University, Diego Rosso, and colleagues from the University of California, Irvine, note that when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the data available to the organization did not include CO2 emission estimates from wastewater, which may contain fossil sources of carbon such as petrochemicals. Although it does take into account greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, the IPCC model assumes that wastewater largely contains and releases carbon from non-petroleum sources -- for example, human waste. However, studies have shown that relevant amounts of petroleum products, such as synthetic chemicals from detergents, wash into wastewater and can eventually add to total greenhouse gas emissions.
The team investigated the fossil-related carbon content of municipal and industrial wastewaters at various points in the treatment process. Including this carbon from treatment plants could increase estimates of their total greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 23 percent over previous estimates that only included methane and nitrous oxide. However, the researchers found that treating wastewater sludge could offer an opportunity to reduce the fossil carbon emissions from treatment plants.
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
An overlooked source of carbon emissions
American Chemical Society
Nations that pledged to carry out the Paris climate agreement have moved forward to find practical ways to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including efforts to ban hydrofluorocarbons and set stricter fuel-efficiency standards. Now scientists report in the ACS journal Environmental Science & Technology that one source of carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas, has been overlooked: wastewater treatment plants. Based on their findings, they recommend actions that could curb emissions from this source.
Linda Y. Tseng, currently at Colgate University, Diego Rosso, and colleagues from the University of California, Irvine, note that when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimated global carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, the data available to the organization did not include CO2 emission estimates from wastewater, which may contain fossil sources of carbon such as petrochemicals. Although it does take into account greenhouse gases methane and nitrous oxide, the IPCC model assumes that wastewater largely contains and releases carbon from non-petroleum sources -- for example, human waste. However, studies have shown that relevant amounts of petroleum products, such as synthetic chemicals from detergents, wash into wastewater and can eventually add to total greenhouse gas emissions.
The team investigated the fossil-related carbon content of municipal and industrial wastewaters at various points in the treatment process. Including this carbon from treatment plants could increase estimates of their total greenhouse gas emissions by 12 to 23 percent over previous estimates that only included methane and nitrous oxide. However, the researchers found that treating wastewater sludge could offer an opportunity to reduce the fossil carbon emissions from treatment plants.
Sleep deprivation may cause people to eat more calories
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/kcl-sdm103116.php
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Sleep deprivation may cause people to eat more calories
King's College London
Sleep deprivation may result in people consuming more calories during the following day, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis led by researchers at King's College London.
The meta analysis combined the results of many previous small intervention studies to produce a more robust answer and found that sleep-deprived people consumed an average of 385 kcal per day extra, which is equivalent to the calories of about four and a half slices of bread.
•••••
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Sleep deprivation may cause people to eat more calories
King's College London
Sleep deprivation may result in people consuming more calories during the following day, according to a systematic review and meta-analysis led by researchers at King's College London.
The meta analysis combined the results of many previous small intervention studies to produce a more robust answer and found that sleep-deprived people consumed an average of 385 kcal per day extra, which is equivalent to the calories of about four and a half slices of bread.
•••••
Well-being linked with when and how people manage emotions
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/afps-wlw110116.php
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Well-being linked with when and how people manage emotions
Association for Psychological Science
Reframing how we think about a situation is a common strategy for managing our emotions, but a new study suggests that using this reappraisal strategy in situations we actually have control over may be associated with lower well-being. The findings are published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
"Our results caution against a 'one strategy fits all' approach, which may be tempting to recommend based on many previous findings regarding reappraisal as a strategy for regulating emotion," says psychological scientist Peter Koval of Australian Catholic University. "Simply using any given emotion regulation strategy more (or less) in all situations may not lead to the best outcomes--instead, contextually-appropriate emotion regulation may be healthier."
•••••
Results showed that participants successfully complied with the survey instructions, answering about 87% of the prompts delivered, on average. The researchers found no reliable associations between participants' well-being and their overall use of reappraisal as a means of regulating emotion in daily life, in line with the notion that reappraisal is not a one-size-fits-all strategy.
The researchers did find, however, that participants who reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, neuroticism, and social anxiety were more likely to use reappraisal in response to situations they perceived as controllable, whereas participants who reported higher well-being tended to use reappraisal more in situations they felt they had little control over.
"We found that people with higher well-being increased their use of reappraisal as contexts became less controllable, whereas individuals with lower well-being showed the opposite pattern," Koval and colleagues explain in their paper.
Given that the study measured reappraisal use in daily life over a single week and assessed well-being on just a one occasion, the results do not tell us whether more situationally-appropriate use of reappraisal leads to greater well-being, or vice versa. Despite this, the researchers argue that the findings suggest that context--in this case, how much control an individual believes he or she has over situations--does make a difference in the outcomes of emotion-regulation strategies.
"When a situation can be directly changed, reappraisal may undermine the adaptive function of emotions in motivating action," the researchers write.
•••••
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Well-being linked with when and how people manage emotions
Association for Psychological Science
Reframing how we think about a situation is a common strategy for managing our emotions, but a new study suggests that using this reappraisal strategy in situations we actually have control over may be associated with lower well-being. The findings are published in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.
"Our results caution against a 'one strategy fits all' approach, which may be tempting to recommend based on many previous findings regarding reappraisal as a strategy for regulating emotion," says psychological scientist Peter Koval of Australian Catholic University. "Simply using any given emotion regulation strategy more (or less) in all situations may not lead to the best outcomes--instead, contextually-appropriate emotion regulation may be healthier."
•••••
Results showed that participants successfully complied with the survey instructions, answering about 87% of the prompts delivered, on average. The researchers found no reliable associations between participants' well-being and their overall use of reappraisal as a means of regulating emotion in daily life, in line with the notion that reappraisal is not a one-size-fits-all strategy.
The researchers did find, however, that participants who reported higher levels of depression, anxiety, stress, neuroticism, and social anxiety were more likely to use reappraisal in response to situations they perceived as controllable, whereas participants who reported higher well-being tended to use reappraisal more in situations they felt they had little control over.
"We found that people with higher well-being increased their use of reappraisal as contexts became less controllable, whereas individuals with lower well-being showed the opposite pattern," Koval and colleagues explain in their paper.
Given that the study measured reappraisal use in daily life over a single week and assessed well-being on just a one occasion, the results do not tell us whether more situationally-appropriate use of reappraisal leads to greater well-being, or vice versa. Despite this, the researchers argue that the findings suggest that context--in this case, how much control an individual believes he or she has over situations--does make a difference in the outcomes of emotion-regulation strategies.
"When a situation can be directly changed, reappraisal may undermine the adaptive function of emotions in motivating action," the researchers write.
•••••
Fear of retaliation
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/uoc-for110216.php
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Fear of retaliation
Why we tend not to enforce social norms
University of Cologne
Imagine a group of travelers who witness two cases of littering at a train station. One person throws a coffee cup on the platform. Another person throws away not only a coffee cup, but an entire bag of trash. Who is more likely to be confronted and reprimanded by bystanders? Although throwing away a bag of trash is considered the bigger norm violation, this behavior does not elicit a stronger reaction in witnesses. That is the result of a study conducted by Bettina Rockenbach, Professor of Experimental and Behavioral Economics at the University of Cologne, Loukas Balafoutas (University of Innsbruck) and Nikos Nikiforakis (New York University Abu Dhabi).
•••••
Travelers have more negative emotions toward the larger violation and felt that it should be reprimanded more severely. Despite these emotional responses, however, the surveyed individuals admitted that they would be reluctant to confront or punish such violations in real-life settings.
The scientists explain this reluctance with the perceived risk of retaliation by the norm violator. The greater the norm violation, the greater the retaliation might be. Bystanders feared that in cases of a more severe social norm violation, the person's reaction would be stronger when confronted or reprimanded. The study shows that social self-regulation has its limits. Up to a certain point, we reprimand each other for bad behavior. But in cases of more extreme norm violations, social self-regulation no longer works and we need authorities, police and security personnel.
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Fear of retaliation
Why we tend not to enforce social norms
University of Cologne
Imagine a group of travelers who witness two cases of littering at a train station. One person throws a coffee cup on the platform. Another person throws away not only a coffee cup, but an entire bag of trash. Who is more likely to be confronted and reprimanded by bystanders? Although throwing away a bag of trash is considered the bigger norm violation, this behavior does not elicit a stronger reaction in witnesses. That is the result of a study conducted by Bettina Rockenbach, Professor of Experimental and Behavioral Economics at the University of Cologne, Loukas Balafoutas (University of Innsbruck) and Nikos Nikiforakis (New York University Abu Dhabi).
•••••
Travelers have more negative emotions toward the larger violation and felt that it should be reprimanded more severely. Despite these emotional responses, however, the surveyed individuals admitted that they would be reluctant to confront or punish such violations in real-life settings.
The scientists explain this reluctance with the perceived risk of retaliation by the norm violator. The greater the norm violation, the greater the retaliation might be. Bystanders feared that in cases of a more severe social norm violation, the person's reaction would be stronger when confronted or reprimanded. The study shows that social self-regulation has its limits. Up to a certain point, we reprimand each other for bad behavior. But in cases of more extreme norm violations, social self-regulation no longer works and we need authorities, police and security personnel.
Cooking temperature may hold clues to heart disease rates, scientists say
https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/uoe-ctm110216.php
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Cooking temperature may hold clues to heart disease rates, scientists say
University of Edinburgh
Food cooked at high heat may carry toxic chemicals that raise risk of heart disease, researchers have warned.
Cooking at a lower heat could help to cut chances of developing the killer disease, experts say.
Researchers call for further studies to investigate the link, which could explain why heart disease rates are higher in communities where traditional cooking methods involve high temperatures.
Cooking food at temperatures above 150 degrees centigrade changes their chemical structure and can lead to the formation of toxic products known as neo-formed contaminants (NFCs).
These include trans-fatty acids - which are known to be harmful and are banned from food sold in many parts of the world - and other toxins called advanced glycation end-products.
Frying foods at a high heat is particularly problematic because the oils readily break down to form trans-fatty acids.
•••••
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Cooking temperature may hold clues to heart disease rates, scientists say
University of Edinburgh
Food cooked at high heat may carry toxic chemicals that raise risk of heart disease, researchers have warned.
Cooking at a lower heat could help to cut chances of developing the killer disease, experts say.
Researchers call for further studies to investigate the link, which could explain why heart disease rates are higher in communities where traditional cooking methods involve high temperatures.
Cooking food at temperatures above 150 degrees centigrade changes their chemical structure and can lead to the formation of toxic products known as neo-formed contaminants (NFCs).
These include trans-fatty acids - which are known to be harmful and are banned from food sold in many parts of the world - and other toxins called advanced glycation end-products.
Frying foods at a high heat is particularly problematic because the oils readily break down to form trans-fatty acids.
•••••
Mental health spending nets return by reducing jail population
And treating people with mental health problems rather than putting them in jail is obviously the moral thing to do.https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2016-11/osu-mhs110216.php
Public Release: 2-Nov-2016
Mental health spending nets return by reducing jail population
Oregon State University
Each dollar a state spends on mental health care cuts roughly 25 cents off its jail expenditures by reducing its inmate population, a new study shows.
The findings, published in the journal Social Science & Medicine, suggest that 35 of the 44 states analyzed could reduce jail populations by spending more on public inpatient mental health care while maintaining their current level of community mental health care. The U.S. average cost for housing a jail inmate is $60 a day.
•••••
People with mental illness make up a significant portion of jail populations, and many of those inmates could be safely supervised and more effectively treated somewhere other than jail. Effects of the treatment could include being less likely to behave in a way that results in being jailed.
•••••
Leonardo DiCaprio’s Before the Flood: A Movie Review
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/leonardo-dicaprios-before-the-flood-a-movie-review
By: Jeff Masters , 3:09 PM GMT on October 31, 2016
“Before the Flood” is Academy Award-winning actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio’s worthy 96-minute documentary on climate change that will be streamed for free all week on Facebook, Youtube, Hulu, Playstation, and can be viewed on demand on Apple iTunes, Amazon, and GooglePlay. DiCaprio spent three years traveling the globe to meet with key political leaders, climate scientists and environmental leaders to understand and document the changes and challenges of climate change. While the movie does not cover much new ground compared to other climate change documentaries like An Inconvenient Truth, it is entertaining to see DiCaprio’s personal journey of understanding, which started with a meeting with Al Gore in 2000, when DiCaprio had “no clue” on the issue of climate change. The movie is worth watching just to see DiCaprio’s remarkable star power—which allows him to interview President Obama, Pope Francis, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Tesla Motors founder Elon Musk and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
https://www.beforetheflood.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M
By: Jeff Masters , 3:09 PM GMT on October 31, 2016
“Before the Flood” is Academy Award-winning actor and environmental activist Leonardo DiCaprio’s worthy 96-minute documentary on climate change that will be streamed for free all week on Facebook, Youtube, Hulu, Playstation, and can be viewed on demand on Apple iTunes, Amazon, and GooglePlay. DiCaprio spent three years traveling the globe to meet with key political leaders, climate scientists and environmental leaders to understand and document the changes and challenges of climate change. While the movie does not cover much new ground compared to other climate change documentaries like An Inconvenient Truth, it is entertaining to see DiCaprio’s personal journey of understanding, which started with a meeting with Al Gore in 2000, when DiCaprio had “no clue” on the issue of climate change. The movie is worth watching just to see DiCaprio’s remarkable star power—which allows him to interview President Obama, Pope Francis, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, Tesla Motors founder Elon Musk and U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.
https://www.beforetheflood.com/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90CkXVF-Q8M
Volcanic vs. Human Emissions
http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2014/09/volcanic-vs-human-emissions/
By David Appell
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
We’ve all seen images of massive volcanoes erupting in a shower of sparks and red-hot lava, with clouds of smoke and ash billowing in the sky. Active volcanoes around the world, including those under the ocean, are a natural source of carbon dioxide — the primary greenhouse gas causing global warming.
Yet human emissions of carbon dioxide now dwarf the emissions coming from volcanoes.
GERLACH: “Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are on the order of a hundred times greater than the emissions from all the volcanoes on the earth. Period.”
That’s Terrence Gerlach, retired U.S. Geological Survey volcanologist. Gerlach says that at the start of the Industrial Revolution, human activities and volcanoes were roughly equal sources of carbon dioxide.
But humans today burn enormous quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. As a result, our emissions of CO2 are now much larger than the emissions from volcanoes. And in turn, global levels of atmospheric CO2 are now higher than they have been in more than eight hundred thousand years.
By David Appell
Wednesday, September 17, 2014
We’ve all seen images of massive volcanoes erupting in a shower of sparks and red-hot lava, with clouds of smoke and ash billowing in the sky. Active volcanoes around the world, including those under the ocean, are a natural source of carbon dioxide — the primary greenhouse gas causing global warming.
Yet human emissions of carbon dioxide now dwarf the emissions coming from volcanoes.
GERLACH: “Carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are on the order of a hundred times greater than the emissions from all the volcanoes on the earth. Period.”
That’s Terrence Gerlach, retired U.S. Geological Survey volcanologist. Gerlach says that at the start of the Industrial Revolution, human activities and volcanoes were roughly equal sources of carbon dioxide.
But humans today burn enormous quantities of coal, oil, and natural gas, releasing billions of tons of carbon dioxide each year. As a result, our emissions of CO2 are now much larger than the emissions from volcanoes. And in turn, global levels of atmospheric CO2 are now higher than they have been in more than eight hundred thousand years.
Sea Ice Extent Is Near Record Lows--South as Well as North
https://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/sea-ice-extent-is-near-record-lowssouth-as-well-as-north
By: Bob Henson , 4:03 PM GMT on October 26, 2016
It’s been a banner year for global sea ice, and not in a good way. After a record-smashing mild winter, the Arctic’s summer sea-ice melt culminated in a tie with 2007 for the second-lowest extent since satellite measurements began in 1979. The drama intensified this month, with Arctic sea ice extent now at a clear record low for late October as calculated by the National Snow and Ice Data Center (see Figure 1 below). This behavior isn’t really such a shock, given that Arctic sea ice has been declining for decades in the midst of sharp high-latitude warming. What’s more startling is the huge extent loss this year in the Antarctic, where sea ice extent had actually been increasing in recent years. This year’s Antarctic extent peaked very early, on August 31, and it’s now at its second-lowest value on record for late October, beaten only by 1986 (see Figure 2 below).
Together, these simultaneous drops have sent global sea ice extent--Arctic plus Antarctic--to its lowest level by far for this time of year since regular satellite monitoring began in 1979. The global extent as of October 25 was more than 1 million square kilometers below this date in 2011, the previous record-holder. In fact, it appears that the last few days are the first time we’ve seen a global departure from average in sea ice extent of more than 3 million sq km—which is more than four times the area occupied by Texas.
We shouldn’t pin too much on this record, because global sea ice extent is a much-abused and somewhat artificial metric. The Arctic and Antarctic have vastly different climate regimes, and what happens at one pole is far more important to its own regional climate than what’s occurring at the other pole. Still, the dramatic dip in global ice extent is worth noting if only because climate-change skeptics and deniers have pointed to global sea ice for years, and especially the Antarctic’s unexpected evolution, in an attempt to discount other evidence of a planet being warmed by increasing amounts of human-produced greenhouse gases. As Jeff Masters put it in this blog in 2010: “Diminishing the importance of Arctic sea ice loss by calling attention to Antarctic sea ice gain is like telling someone to ignore the fire smoldering in their attic, and instead go appreciate the coolness of the basement, because there is no fire there.”
•••••
It appears that a set of interlocking, difficult-to-model factors over the last few years has fostered the increasing trend in Antarctic sea ice, especially in the Ross Sea area. These include:
--A strengthening of the midlatitude westerlies that encircle Antarctica. These have fostered upwelling of cold subsurface waters across the Southern Ocean, which allows sea ice to expand more readily.
--Increased meltwater flowing from Antarctica into the Southern Ocean. This reduces the salinity of waters near the coast, thus allowing the surface to freeze at a warmer temperature.
--Strengthening of a prevailing low in the Amundsen Sea off West Antarctica. The flow around the Amundsen Sea Low pulls cold air off the continent and into the Ross Sea. The resulting increase in sea ice over that region has made up for ice reductions in the Amundsen-Bellingshausen region, where the circulation around the prevailing low tends to bring relatively mild air onshore.
The same study also noted unmistakable signs of climate change in the Antarctic, including warming of the subsurface ocean, thinning of ice shelves, and the acceleration of outlet glaciers that ring the ice sheet. According to an essay in The Conversation by three of the study’s authors, the cooling of surface waters around Antarctica has been masking “a much more ominous change deeper down in the ocean, particularly near the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and the Totten glacier in East Antarctica. In these regions, worrying rates of subsurface ocean warming have been detected up against the base of ice sheets. There are real fears that subsurface melting could destabilise ice sheets, accelerating future global sea level rise.”
•••••
It should also be emphasized that the globe’s overall sea-ice budget has been in the red for quite some time. In 2015, NASA’s Claire Parkinson showed that the losses in Arctic ice were already outweighing the lesser increases in Antarctic ice. “I think that the expectation is that, if anything, in the long term the Antarctic sea ice growth is more likely to slow down or even reverse,” Parkinson said.
•••••
Labe is even more impressed by the very low ice thickness and volume, as estimated by computer models that reproduce the ice in three dimensions. “I think this will become a bigger story,” he said. “The Arctic ice is looking incredibly thin, which is to be expected from such warmth in both the air and ocean.”
•••••
Libertarian VP candidate: I'm 'vouching' for Clinton
The Hill usually leans Republican.http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/303911-libertarian-vp-candidate-im-vouching-for-clinton
November 01, 2016, 11:09 pm
By Harper Neidig
Bill Weld, the Libertarian Party’s vice presidential candidate, said on Tuesday that he’s “vouching” for Hillary Clinton in the face of attacks from Donald Trump.
During an interview on MSNBC’s “Rachel Maddow Show,” the former Massachusetts governor was pressed about whether he is loyal enough to the Libertarian Party to risk throwing the election to Trump.
“Well I’m here vouching for Mrs. Clinton,” Weld said, “and I think it’s high time somebody did, and I’m doing it based on my personal experience with her. I think she deserves to have people vouch for her other than members of the Democratic National Committee, so I’m here to do that.”
Weld, who served as the head of the Justice Department’s criminal division in the '80s, also defended Clinton over a new FBI review of emails related to her private server investigation, saying, “There’s nothing there.”
[In case anybody has forgotten, this means he served in Reagan's Justice Department.]
Maddow responded by pointing to a campaign press release from the Libertarian ticket that blasted Clinton over the new revelation. She asked Weld if he disagreed with the statement, which was released under his and Gary Johnson’s names.
“That’s correct,” he said, noting that he and Johnson have had a number of disagreements in the past.
Tuesday, November 01, 2016
Key GOP senator criticizes FBI director James Comey for vague letter
There are still some honorable Republicans left.
By Rebecca Shabad CBS News November 1, 2016, 8:35 AM
The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday said that FBI Director James Comey’s disclosure Friday about newly discovered emails related to the private email servers probe is “not fair to Congress, the American people or Secretary [Hillary] Clinton.”
In a letter to Comey Monday, Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said that Comey’s letter to GOP committee chairmen on Friday was “vague” and he listed a number of questions that he wants answered by Friday.
The letter, Grassley said, was unclear about what investigative steps the FBI is taking, why they are necessary to review the emails and whether they might include steps like seeking a search warrant. While he said Comey faced a “difficult decision,” Grassley was largely critical of the FBI director’s actions.
“While I disagree with those who suggest you should have kept the FBI’s discovery secret until after the election, I agree that your disclosure did not go far enough,” Grassley wrote. “Unfortunately, your letter failed to give Congress and the American people enough context to evaluate the significant or full meaning of the disclosure.”
He continued by saying the disclosure without additional context is “not fair to Congress, the American people or Secretary Clinton.”
•••••
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
