|
Fear |
 |
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=40776"><span class="small">Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page</span></a>
|
|
Monday, 13 February 2017 09:19 |
|
Rather writes: "Fear can be a great motivator, but also can be a great destroyer. Leadership decisions based on fear among a people seized by fear can lead to the decline and fall of nations. This has been known since at least the time of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks."
Dan Rather. (photo: USA Today)
Fear
By Dan Rather, Dan Rather's Facebook Page
13 February 17
 s reports flow in of raids and roundups of immigrants in the name of public safety and law and order, let’s pause to talk about fear—that most primal of human emotions, the one President Donald Trump seems determined to stir up in the breast of the American psyche. It is an effort that in my mind is so quintessentially un-American that it is destined to fail. Or at least I hope it fails... but even if it does, so much havoc and sadness will be wrought. It has already begun.
We are prone to fear for a reason. Fear of danger can keep you alive. But fear is a fickle beast that can distort and damage as much as protect. Fear prevents exploration, undermines growth and can poison society. Fear can be a great motivator, but also can be a great destroyer. Leadership decisions based on fear among a people seized by fear can lead to the decline and fall of nations. This has been known since at least the time of the ancient Egyptians and Greeks.
Mr. Trump is using fear of terrorism and lawlessness—real and legitimate fears—to advocate hurried, massive, radical changes to our immigration policy, indeed to our very self-identity. It was this fear, and the President’s methods for trying to use it, that the Appeals Court recently struck down, using our Constitution as a bulwark for their ruling, just the kind of check on power our Founding Fathers envisioned.
Those who founded our great nation were not fearful people. They literally put their lives on the line in the service of freedom. Those pioneers who forged into the frontier were not fearful people. Neither were those who fought to safeguard our liberty on foreign battlefields. Or those who marched for civil rights, facing down bigotry, dogs, and firehoses. For sure, many individuals felt personal terror - but the movements that made our country what it is today was built on improbable hope, courage that conquered fear.
Every American president I can think of relied on the rhetoric of hope more than fear - until now. Yes Franklin Roosevelt famously said in his First Inaugural Address, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But you will find that spirit echoed in the speeches of those who followed.
To be sure, many demagogues in our past - including elected officials - have paved their path to power on fear. Race was a favorite target - but also religion, gender, sexuality, country of origin, social status and so many more. The purpose of these campaigns of fear was to divide America, not to solve our problems.
And that is just what is happening now. If we were to better calibrate our fears to our challenges, we would also be talking about the threat of homegrown extremists such as Nazi-inspired White Nationalists and the Klan, about gun violence, climate change, antibiotic resistance, Russian interference in our election, and so on. There are many important topics about which to worry. Terrorism spawned by violent, extreme Islamists is on that list. Rational, well-thought out, organized and Constitutional adjustments in policy to deal with it may be advisable. But it is not the only threat we face - far from it.
And when you add the fear-mongering Mr. Trump has done around immigration (especially of the undocumented or illegal variety, depending on your point of view), or these supposedly gang-ridden cities, or the fake high murder rate, it is plain what is going on. Mr. Trump is playing to his base, with lies and half-truths that seek only to further his political ends. While he attempts to ignite new levels of fear in what he hopes will be a majority of Americans, he shows no regard for the fear struck in the minorities most affected. For example, the fear he is stirring in men, women, and children who are living in this country as peaceful and contributing members of society but without legal status. Again, for clarity, this problem of good people without legal status needs to be address. But not with sudden roundups and raids that are designed to spread fear.
I think - I fervently hope - that these tactics and the whole strategy of fear-mongering will fail over time. Our history argues that, in America, the pendulum almost invariably swings back to common sense and tolerance after the fever breaks. But in the meantime, much damage can be done. In the present case, lives have already been broken. Anxiety and unease—and yes, downright fear—seeps into if not sweeps over so many.
But as I’ve said before, and I believe bears repeating: courage is being afraid but going on anyhow.
 |
|
Do Car Bans Actually Mitigate Air Pollution? |
|
|
Monday, 13 February 2017 09:13 |
|
Trigg writes: "In recent months, several cities from Paris to New Delhi have resorted to banning cars to improve worsening air pollution. While some see this as a long-term solution, others question if it is no more than an emergency band-aid on a profusely polluting limb."
Banning cars might one day become a logical conclusion of urban design instead of a knee-jerk reaction to bad air pollution. (photo: Ziga FreeImages.com)
Do Car Bans Actually Mitigate Air Pollution?
By Tali Trigg, Scientific American
13 February 17
Recent measures in Paris and New Delhi yield mixed results
 n recent months, several cities from Paris to New Delhi have resorted to banning cars to improve worsening air pollution. While some see this as a long-term solution, others question if it is no more than an emergency band-aid on a profusely polluting limb.
Air quality can be a hard thing to ascertain, but with increasing air quality monitoring, not to mention social media activity on the topic, air pollution is worsening in many cities, and nitrogen oxides (NOx) from the transport sector are a major culprit, with deleterious effects including asthma, heart disease, and cancer.
Transport is not alone to blame; in many cities there are nearby power stations and/or industrial production, which contribute a large share of pollution, but these are understandably harder for politicians to shift overnight. So when citizens demand for action, they sometimes get it, but the question is: is it the right action?
In cities like Beijing, a bogeyman is often thrown under the wagon to appease citizens, such as street vendors, who despite unctuous smells do not actually contribute much to ambient air quality. In all cases, however, topography matters. If your city has the unfortunate bowl shape of Los Angeles, Mexico City, or Kathmandu, then it will always be harder dealing with poor air quality. Of course, that is not a reason for passivity, but action.
So, what can be done? Well, there are two broad paths really. Either you ban cars as an emergency measure. Or, you lay the groundwork for walking, cycling, and public transportation, so that car-free or car-optional lives become reality.
While car-free days have the additional and substantial benefit of increasing public awareness of sustainable transport, it will not be enough to solve dangerous air pollution in cities. Rather, long-term solutions include: permanently banning diesel cars — a carcinogenic fuel option, long overdue for reform, as well as improved access to buses, metro rail, walking, cycling, and especially connectivity between options. Other than that, forget about technology-driven quick-fixes that only politicians would choose — looking at you, electric buses. Sure, they have positive effects, but are not comprehensive nor serious near-term solutions to a very serious problem.
Finally, let’s not forget about proportionality. While passenger cars get a bad reputation, let’s not forget that the freight sector accounts for a significant portion of urban air pollution while accounting for a small part of the overall vehicle fleet. Sounds like an opportunity to me. And speaking of proportionality, consider this: in New Delhi, 14% of travel demand is carried by cars, but 80% of spending is dedicated towards it. Go figure.
|
|
|
Fukushima: Still Getting Worse After Six Years of Meltdowns |
|
|
Written by <a href="index.php?option=com_comprofiler&task=userProfile&user=20877"><span class="small">William Boardman, Reader Supported News</span></a>
|
|
Sunday, 12 February 2017 13:42 |
|
Boardman writes: After a week of limited coverage of 'unimaginable levels' of radiation inside the remains of collapsed Unit 2 at Fukushima (see below), Nuclear-News.net reported February 11 that radiation levels are actually significantly higher than 'unimaginable.'"
IAEA fact-finding team examines devastation at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant in May 2011. (photo: IAEA/Greg Webb)
Fukushima: Still Getting Worse After Six Years of Meltdowns
By William Boardman, Reader Supported News
12 February 17
Even Fox News reports radiation at “unimaginable levels”
fter a week of limited coverage of “unimaginable levels” of radiation inside the remains of collapsed Unit 2 at Fukushima (see below), Nuclear-News.net reported February 11 that radiation levels are actually significantly higher than “unimaginable.”
Continuous, intense radiation, at 530 sieverts an hour (4 sieverts is a lethal level), was widely reported in early February 2017 – as if this were a new phenomenon. It’s not. Three reactors at Fukushima melted down during the earthquake-tsunami disaster on March 3, 2011, and the meltdowns never stopped. Radiation levels have been out of control ever since. As Fairewinds Energy Education noted in an email February 10:
Although this robotic measurement just occurred, this high radiation reading was anticipated and has existed inside the damaged Unit 2 atomic reactor since the disaster began nearly 6 years ago…. As Fairewinds has said for 6 years, there are no easy solutions because groundwater is in direct contact with the nuclear corium (melted fuel) at Fukushima Daiichi.
What’s new (and not very new, at that) is the official acknowledgement of the highest radiation levels yet measured there, by a factor of seven (the previously measured high was 73 sieverts an hour in 2012). The highest radiation level measured at Chernobyl was 300 sieverts an hour. What this all means, as anyone paying attention well knows, is that the triple-meltdown Fukushima disaster is still out of control.
“Sievert” is one of the many terms of mystification used to prevent most people from fully understanding radiation. A “sievert” is roughly equivalent to a “gray,” as each represents a “joule” per kilogram (not to be confused, for example, with “Curie” or Bequerel,” or with “rem,” “rad,” or “roentgen”). In the International System of Units (SI), a “joule” is the “unit of work or energy, equal to the work done by a force of one newton when its point of application moves one meter in the direction of action of the force, equivalent to one 3600th of a watt-hour.” Got that? The jargon doesn’t much matter as far as public safety is concerned. All ionizing radiation is life-threatening. The more you’re exposed, the more you’re threatened. As Physics Stack Exchange illustrates the issue:
The dose [of radiation] that kills a tumor is deliberately aimed at that tumor. If, instead of using a collimated beam, you put a person in a wide beam for radio "therapy", you would be treating their entire body as a tumor and kill them.
Radiation levels at Fukushima are comparable to a nuclear explosion that doesn’t end. That’s one reason that TEPCO, the Tokyo Electric Power Co. that owns Fukushima, keeps trying to reassure the world that little or no radiation escapes from Fukushima. This is not true, radiation in large, mostly unmeasured or undocumented amounts pours into the Pacific Ocean all the time, without pause. One reason this release is out of control is because no one apparently knows just where the three melted reactor cores have gone. TEPCO says it thinks the melted cores have burned through the reactors’ inner containment vessels, but are still within the outer containment walls. They keep looking as best they can.
On February 3, 2017, the Guardian reported the high radiation levels discovered by a remote camera sent into the reactor on a telescopic arm. Reader Supported News carried the story from EcoWatch on February 5. Essentially the same story was reported on February 6 by Smithsonian.com, on February 7 by ZeroHedge.com, and on February 8, Fox News reported that “radiation levels at Japan's crippled Fukushima nuclear power plant are now at ‘unimaginable’ levels.” There have apparently been no such reports on CBS, NBC, CNN, or MSNBC. On February 9, ABC ran an AP story about pulling a robot out of Unit 2 because of “high radiation,” without specifying a level and adding: “TEPCO officials reassured that despite the dangerously high figures, radiation is not leaking outside of the reactor.” (PJMedia.com calls the Fox story “fake news,” relies on ad hominem argument, trusts TEPCO on keeping track of the irradiated ocean flow, and accepts US EPA standards for “safe” drinking water – without actually discrediting the story.)
On February 12, Pakistan Defence ran the AP story of February 9, but included the new level of radiation at 650 sieverts that fried a robot’s camera, adding:
The high levels of radiation may seem alarming, but there’s good news: it's contained, and there are no reports of new leaks from the plant. That means that the radiation shouldn't affect nearby townships. Higher levels of radiation could also mean the robot is getting closer to the precise source of radioactivity to properly remove the melted fuel.
All this coverage relates only to Unit 2’s melted reactor core. There is no reliable news of the condition of the melted reactor cores in two other units. Last November, in a half-hour talk reviewing the Fukushima crisis, Arnie Gunderson of Fairewinds Energy Education discussed the three missing reactor cores and what he suspected was the likelihood that they had not been contained within the reactor.
The ground water flowing into, through, and out of the reactor is contaminated by its passage and is having some impact on the Pacific Ocean. The US, like other governments, is ignoring whatever is happening, allowing it to happen as if it doesn’t matter and never will. In Carmel, California, local residents are finding that tide pools, once vibrant with life, are now dead. They blame Fukushima.
Whatever is actually going on at Fukushima is not good, and has horrifying possibilities. It is little comfort to have the perpetrator of the catastrophe, TEPCO, in charge of fixing it, especially when the Japanese government is more an enabler of cover-up and denial than any kind of seeker of truth or protector of its people. It took private researchers five years to figure out that Fukushima’s fallout of Cesium-137 on Tokyo took a more dangerous, glassy form that wasn’t cleaned up effectively.
The US and most of the rest of the world have chosen not to take Fukushima more seriously than a multi-car Interstate pile-up. The policy is one more roll of the dice, saving money now and gambling the future. But now we have Rick Perry heading up the US Department of Energy and Scott Pruitt slated to take over the Environmental Protection Agency – so we can expect big changes, right?
Actually there has been one big change already at the Energy Dept., which uses more contractors than any other US agency. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Energy Dept. failed to protect whistleblowers who raised legitimate nuclear safety and other concerns. In response, the Energy Dept. prepared a new rule protecting whistleblowers from contractor retaliation. That rule was blocked from going into effect by President Trump’s regulatory freeze on January 20.
In a sense, Fukushima is perhaps a metaphor for the current American moment. The electoral earthquake and tsunami of 11/9 has produced a political meltdown of unknown and expanding proportions, that continue unchecked, causing still unmeasured destruction and human suffering far into a dark and dangerous future.
William M. Boardman has over 40 years experience in theatre, radio, TV, print journalism, and non-fiction, including 20 years in the Vermont judiciary. He has received honors from Writers Guild of America, Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Vermont Life magazine, and an Emmy Award nomination from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences.
Reader Supported News is the Publication of Origin for this work. Permission to republish is freely granted with credit and a link back to Reader Supported News.
|
|
Republicans Are Still Lying About Obamacare and Americans Aren't Having It |
|
|
Sunday, 12 February 2017 13:41 |
|
Moore writes: "The ACA has never been more popular and you can see it at town halls across the country."
Rep. Paul Ryan. (photo: Getty Images)
Republicans Are Still Lying About Obamacare and Americans Aren't Having It
By Jack Moore, GQ
12 February 17
The ACA has never been more popular and you can see it at town halls across the country.
 or years, one of the dogmas of the Republican party was that Obamacare needed to be repealed. Forget for a second that many of the most controversial sections of Obamacare (like the individual mandate) began their life as ideas from the Republican party; Republicans have spent the years since the ACA was passed spreading lies about the bill. Paul Ryan has said that it's bankrupting Medicare, when in fact the truth is just the opposite. This comes from FactCheck.org.
As for Ryan’s claim that Obamacare had worsened Medicare’s financing,
that’s not the case, either. In fact, the law both expanded Medicare
funding—adding a 0.9 percent tax on earnings above $200,000 for
single taxpayers or $250,000 for married couples—and cut the growth
of future spending. Additional revenue and savings actually extend the
life of the trust fund. The trustees’ 2010 report estimated that the
ACA had added 12 years to the life of the Part A trust fund.
That's right! Literally the exact opposite is true. The ACA has PROLONGED Medicare's life. But the worst of the lies that Republicans have trotted out is the trusty old "Death Panels.", or the idea that a government panel would decide if elderly people weren't worthy of care anymore. (It's funny how Obamacare has now been in place for years, and yet there have been no death panels. It's almost like it was never true at all. Oh right, that's because it wasn't even a little bit.)
Well, that's not stopping some GOP officials from trotting that idea out in the debate over the potential repeal of Obamacare, and this time Americans aren't buying that shit. Take for instance this amazing moment from a town hall in Florida when local Republican official Bill Akins tried to use "Death Panels" as an argument for the repeal of a law that gives 20 million people healthcare. The reaction? Angrier than you can imagine! We're talking angrier than Donald Trump is every time he looks at Sean Spicer levels of anger.
And then the guy had the gall to be offended by being called a liar for, well, lying about something that has been debunked over and over again SINCE 2009! That's eight solid years of debunking and this guy still is trying to sell this shit.
Americans are done with the same old tricks from the same old snake oil salesmen. This is what an effective resistance looks like. Show up at town halls. Make your voices heard. Let them politicians know that there's a reason why Obamacare is more popular today than it has ever been before.
|
|
