Thursday, May 26, 2016

They should invest in clean energy but...



Tillerson And Exxon Versus Science

Tillerson told shareholders, “We can set the science apart from what we as a society are going to choose to pursue as a matter of policy…. There’s no space between us and IPCC. We see the science the same way.”
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson answers questions at a 2014 shareholders meeting.
ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson answers questions at a 2014 shareholders meeting.
CREDIT: AP PHOTO/LM OTERO
That is utter nonsense. In 2013, the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) assessment of the scientific literature warned that on our current emissions path we faced, “9°F Warming For U.S., Faster Sea Rise, More Extreme Weather, Permafrost Collapse.” Then in March 2014, the IPCC warned the “World Faces ‘Breakdown Of Food Systems’ And More Violent Conflict.”
Then in April 2014, the IPCC explained the science was very clear that “Avoiding Climate Catastrophe Is Super Cheap — But Only If We Act Now.” Finally, in November 2014, the world’s top scientists and governmentsissued their bluntest plea: Slash carbon pollution now (at a very low cost) or risk “severe, pervasive and irreversible impacts for people and ecosystems.” Scientists have “high confidence” these devastating impacts occur “even with adaptation” — if we keep doing little or nothing.
So Tillerson says “There’s no space between us and IPCC” — and that is clearly B.S. The IPCC pleas for aggressively replacing fossil fuels with carbon free energy starting now while Tillerson wants to do little but search for breakthrough miracles. Moreover, Exxon continues to fund groups who discredit this information about the IPCC, the science, and the solutions — years after saying they would stop.
Tillerson also said “There’s no space between” he and Gates. So, Bill, is that really true?

VISIT THIS WEB SITE AND LEARN THE FACTS! http://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/clouds-and-sea-ice-what-satellites-show-about-arctic-climate-change

Quality versus crap.





Todd William has a good essay pointing out the importance of human creative invention throughout history. The accumulations created and left for us by past expert craftsmen and artists help to create our cultural and physical reality today, however, we also have today an over-abundance of machine made objects that serve no honest long-term purpose! Most of today's inventions serve only as products to maintain a corporate economy. The producers and marketers of this junk, profit only if the item is purchased by so called "consumers" and rendered useless within six months. This helps to keep the economic machinery functioning. So called "New" products quickly replace the older products. It also creates a danger to the planet!

 The concept of consumerism where you market and destroy has got to change! Mass marketed products created as disposable "consumer" items are filling up garbage land-fill sites faster than our human ability to recycle and re-use. The pollution is incredible! Nature cannot tolerate the sustained pressure on its Bio-system! We can create work for people without creating more junk and more environmental devastaton! Today we do need Artists and Artisans and Inventors creating long lasting products for future generations but what we do not need is more Madison Avenue planned mass marketed corporate junk creating pollution! Visit the http://www.Storyofstuff.org  for a better understanding.

Joseph Raglione.
===============================================================

Todd William

Shared publicly  -  Yesterday 5:02 PM
The Accumulation of Humanity

Two centuries ago, Sam Smiles made the observation that we would have "remained uncivilized but for the savings and accumulations made by our forefathers - the savings of skill, or art, or invention, and of intellectual culture." This remains as true today as it did then.

Nearly every physical item you use began as a thought in other people’s minds. Look around your home. Your table, your chair, your bed, your electronics, your car, even your house, all of it was invented by someone other than you. And you have never met any of these people.

This notion isn't limited to physical items. The language you speak, the manner in which you communicate, even the way you prepare your food was mostly someone else's idea. What exactly have any of us contributed to this?

There is no harm in admitting we all benefit from society in some way. Even history's most notable minds at best added only small increments to the massive ocean of human ideas. As great a mind as Isaac Newton was, he slept on a bed he didn't invent and under a roof he didn't design just like we all do.

The point isn't to drop everything and find a way to start contributing, as worthy as that might be. What's important here is that even though we should praise self-sufficiency and individuality, none of us should ever overlook the tremendous value we all gain by merely being a part of humanity



(Image by: Jean-François Rauzier)
Show less

ECONOMY

Texas’ Largest Jail Accused Of Jailing Poor People Because They Don’t Have Money

 MAY 23, 2016 4:13 PM

CREDIT: AP PHOTO/ERIC RISBERG

Maranda Lynn ODonnell’s supposed crime was small. On May 18, she was arrested for allegedly driving with an invalid license. But the 22-year-old mother says she was still jailed for two days at the Harris County Jail in Texas, kept away from her four-year-old daughter and her new job at a restaurant.
If ODonnell had more money, she would have been able to go home immediately. But she doesn’t have many resources. She can’t afford her own home, so she and her daughter stay with a friend. She relies on WIC benefits to feed her child. She lives paycheck to paycheck. So when she was told she either had to pay a $2,500 bail after her arrest or be detained, she was stuck in the jailhouse.
She’s not the only one. In a lawsuit she filed with the nonprofit Equal Justice Under Law against Harris County, two others recounted similar stories. Loetha Shanta McGruder, another 22-year-old mother of a four-year-old with Down syndrome and ten-month-old infant who is also pregnant with a third child, was arrested on May 19 in Jacinto, Texas and told to pay a $5,000 bail. She can’t afford it; she has no job, no money or savings, lives on disability payments and child support, and was already planning to apply to Medicaid so she can get OB-GYN care as well as food stamps. Robert Ryan Ford, a 26-year-old with no work, no bank account, and no assets was told to pay $5,000 after he was arrested on May 18.
The three of them are lucky, though. Two days after her arrest, ODonnell was released and reunited with her daughter. While she almost lost her job — the restaurant hired a new waitress when ODonnell missed a few shifts — the new hire didn’t work out and she should be able to go back to work later this week. McGruder and Ford are both supposed to be released on Monday.
But the county’s practices haven’t changed since the lawsuit was filed, according to one of the attorneys, and hundreds of other people too poor to afford bail are still being held.
The Harris County Jail is the largest in Texas and the third largest in the country. And most of the people inside, 77 percent, are there because they can’t afford to pay bail of $5,000 or less, according to the lawsuit. In a typical month, the jail will see about 8,600 people, 6,800 of whom are detained awaiting trial. About 8 percent of those pretrial detainees are arrested on misdemeanors.
Even worse, 55 people died in the Harris County Jail between 2009 and 2015 while awaiting trail and unable to afford bail. The most recent death was Patrick Brown, according to the complaint, who died on April 5 while being held on a $3,000 bail he couldn’t afford after he was charged with misdemeanor theft.


And while the jail population fell by 2,500 between 2009 and 2014, the share of people there waiting for their trials only fell by 15, while the number of people awaiting trial on a misdemeanor actually grew by 29 percent.
The lawsuit argues that the practice of detaining people too poor to pay bail without assessing whether they can afford it is unconstitutional. It alleges that the county’s practice is to determine bail based on a generic offense-based schedule. Anyone who can’t pay is detained. Then usually within 24 hours, arrestees appear via a videolink before a hearing officer, who determines probable cause for the arrest and approves the original bail amount, sometimes adding to it, without inquiring about whether the arrestee can pay. Arrestees don’t get defense attorneys, nor are they usually allowed to speak or request to have their bail reduced. ODonnell said she was told not to speak during her hearing and it took all of 60 seconds. As one prosecutor recently put it, according to the lawsuit, if an arrestee “can’t pay, they sit in jail.”
After the hearing, anyone who still doesn’t have the money is taken to the County Court to see a judge and is assigned a court-appointed attorney. But bail is still unlikely to be reduced, given that it only happens in less than 1 percent of cases, and detainees stay locked up outside of the courtroom, often not even appearing inside. Many plead guilty — almost 80 percent, compared to 56 percent of those who aren’t locked up before trial — because they are told they can get released more quickly.
“Harris County’s wealth-based pretrial detention system violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the United States Constitution,” the lawsuit says. “It has no place in modern American law.” It seeks an injunction to end the practice.
It’s not the only place using such practices, however. Money bonds are required in agrowing share of pretrial releases. California faces a class action lawsuit against its use of money bail, while the practice is being reformed or ended in big cities like New York as well as small ones in places like Missouri and Alabama. Officials at the Department of Justice (DOJ) have also put the practice on notice, sending chief justices and court administrators across the country a letter in March warning against money bail schemes that jail people solely because they can’t pay.
Other, similar practices have come under notice by the DOJ. The same letter highlighted modern-day debtors prisons, where courts levy fines and fees without determining whether people can pay and then jailing them if they can’t afford them. Lawsuits have been brought against the practices in a number of places across the country.

Wednesday, May 25, 2016

Gene editing cured a Leukemia patient in the U.K.

CRUNCH NETWORK

Reshaping human health and changing lives through gene editing

Next Story
Gene editing is going to fundamentally change our lives and how we traditionally think about health throughout the first half of the 21st century.
Gene editing is going to change the way people are treated by curing the roots of diseases instead of merely treating the symptoms. It’s going to change the way we think about what we put into our bodies, as gene editing will put healthier food on our plates without polluting the planet. This food will not only be safe to eat, it will also meet the environmental challenges related to sustainable growth and climate change.
As a result, people will no longer focus on whether or not we should engage in gene editing from an ethical standpoint. The question isn’t “When will gene editing become a significant reality for the majority of the world?” The truth is, this is neither science fiction nor a prediction — gene editing is happening now, as evidenced by the first cancer patient having been treated by TALEN®-based gene-edited T-cells. Additionally, this fall, fields across the United States will harvest TALEN®-based gene-edited soybeans and potatoes. There are even gene-edited pigs and hornless cows that are currently walking around the barnyard.
The landscape in gene editing is anything but clear, but the recent emergence of new gene-editing technologies, with new players in the space, has led to an inevitable ethical debate.
For example, three early clinical-stage startup companies, all based on CRISPR technology, have struck major alliances with big pharma and biotech companies: Editas Medicine (Juno Therapeutics), CRISPR Therapeutics (Vertex and Celgene) and Intellia Therapeutics (Novartis).
While these alliances are important, the long-term successes of these companies depend upon their ability to deliver on their promises. Turning CRISPR innovations into approved and effective drugs is a core focus, and it will still take years of more hard work before an effective, approved drug will result from these efforts — if at all.
Additionally, Sangamo BioSciences and Precision BioSciences are two other well-established companies that operate in the gene-editing space. Precision Bio, which has so far used its ARCUS gene-editing technology to advance the research efforts of its biotechnology partners, is now aiming to use its technology to develop its own products.
Sangamo is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company that is researching ways to commercializeZinc finger nucleases, which modify a cell’s DNA at a location, thereby correcting or disrupting a specific gene. Its lead therapy, SB-728, is a potential functional cure for HIV/AIDS, and recent published data further support the company’s ongoing progress, which has been described as a major step toward immunological functional control of HIV.
All of this brings us to the subsequent ethical debate, which centers on the potential threat of gene editing, specifically gene-edited humans.
The fear of gene editing — and the concerns around what people could do through gene editing — isn’t based on any kind of rational fact.
It’s important to remember that animal transgenesis took place more than 35 years ago through a process that was immediately transposable to humans, and this has not led to any wave of transgenic humans. The same goes for the ability to knock out genes in human embryonic stem cells, cloning humans after Dolly the Sheep technology or using human iPS cells to create new clones. The fear of gene editing — and the concerns around what people could do through gene editing — isn’t based on any kind of rational fact.
People often ask: “What is gene editing? Should I be concerned about this. What happens if ill-intentioned people get their hands on this technology?”
The answer is complicated. Technologies such as cell phones and social media have fundamentally changed global society. For the vast majority, these changes have been for the good, even if bad people misuse them.
Gene editing is similar to this; it is a fundamental change in the way we look at the basic building blocks of life. It provides us with the ability to rethink how we treat diseases, how we grow our food and how we think about ourselves as humans.
The ultimate act of civilization was initially thought of as growing plants and breeding animals, hence genetic selection and cloning. Cloning, or selecting the best breeds, was initially done to improve survival. Since then, humans continued to perfect this technology.
With a population that’s close to reaching more than 9 billion humans on the planet, much of our survival may depend on the strength of gene editing. Furthermore, who cares today if a person is the result of in vitro fertilization? Do you remember the debate on this in the 1970s? This is no longer a debate.
2015 was a pivotal year, and gene editing is now transforming our lives in very real ways. The first leukemic patient — who could not be saved by any other therapy — was injected with a gene-editedCAR T-cell product candidate at the Great Ormond Street Hospital in the United Kingdom. She was the first patient helped by gene editing.
According to experts at the European Medicine Agency, this is the most complex product they have ever seen. It is the result of very sophisticated reprogramming of T-cells — adding some genes while suppressing others — to convert T-cells into a powerful cancer-killing machine.
This product can be produced by the thousands, stored long-term, provided to hospitals around the world and given to any patient who is in medical need. Today, this may be complex to produce, but it is simple to administer to patients. Tomorrow, it has the potential to become a standard in medicine.
2015 was an equally positive year for commercial agriculture, as gene-edited harvests across the United States were abundant, making it conceivable for gene-edited potatoes and soybeans to make it to consumer plates within two years. For the previous 50 years, the focus of plant breeding was increasing yield that resulted in greater productivity but included increased use of herbicides and pesticides. Until recently, the health of consumers was not a focus, resulting in a negative impact of mass agriculture and the rise of organic agriculture.
Today, organic agriculture represents less that 10 percent of current U.S. production. Nevertheless, with a growing population and an ever-diminishing cultivation space (not speaking about global warming, sustainability or equitable growth), a strong demand for healthier products and respect of nature is a paradox that can be solved either by economic shrinkage or technology. This upcoming harvest is the first step to finding an answer to this margin squeeze, and sets the stage for a new route to human expansion and sustainable development.
Again, it is not a question of if or when gene editing will happen; rather, it’s whether or not we would like to be the first to make it happen. As President Obama stated in his most recent State of the Union address: “Let’s make America the country that cures cancer once and for all.” This came one day after the launch of the Cancer MoonShot 2020 effort, led by big pharma and biotech companies. But we don’t have to wait until 2020 to administer a treatment that eliminates cancer cells. We are well on our way with gene editing.
FEATURED IMAGE: BRYCE DURBIN

Tuesday, May 24, 2016

President Barack Obama keeps another promise.





The White House, Washington

Just three weeks into my presidency, I made a promise to the people of Elkhart, Indiana.
It was the first city I visited as President. Folks there had been hit harder by the recession than almost anywhere else in America. The unemployment rate was on its way to nearly twenty percent. Companies that had sustained that community for years were shedding jobs at an alarming speed -- and hardworking families were losing their homes and health care along with those jobs.
When I spoke to the people of Elkhart in February of 2009, I promised them that if we worked together, we could pull that community and this country out of the depths of recession -- that we could not only recover, but put ourselves on a better, stronger course.
Today, thanks to the hard work of people in Elkhart and in communities across the country, America has recovered from crisis and we’re on the cusp of resurgence.
That's why I'm going back to Elkhart next Wednesday -- to highlight the economic progress we’ve made and discuss the challenges that remain.

Elkhart: The story of America's recovery

The story of Elkhart's recovery is the story of America's recovery.
Today, Elkhart's manufacturing industry is back, and the town has regained nearly all of the jobs it lost during the downturn. The unemployment rate is lower than it was before the recession, and lower than the national average. In Indiana, more people have health insurance, and fewer homeowners are underwater.
This progress is thanks to the effort and determination of Americans like you. And it’s a result of the choices we made as a nation.
We still face some tough economic challenges, there’s no doubt about it. And all of us have to make some very important decisions about where we go from here.
That’s what I’m going to talk about when I return to Elkhart on Wednesday. I hope you'll tune in.
Thank you,
President Barack Obama

This email was sent to human4usbillions@gmail.com.
Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy
Please do not reply to this email. Contact the White House

The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111

DO YOU CONSIDER YOURSELF INTELLIGENT? GET OVER IT!

     Do you consider yourself intelligent? If yes, how about explaining the concept of eternity?....... Not easy, is it?  I am a perpetual s...