'Who Lost the Saudis?' - Who Cares?

The Smithsonian channel's documentary, 'Islam and the West', ought to be required viewing for every American and especially the hysterical subset that believes all Muslims are the next thing to demons. The documentary traces the origins of Islam from Mohammed and to the present day, including how none other than the Brits- in the latter days of their Empire - drew up all the boundaries in the Middle East including for Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Palestine - totally ignoring ethnic and tribal affiliations.

But their real deal was in paving the way for a Bedouin tribe - ruled by Ibn al Saud-


 to lay claim to most of the Arabian peninsula via the "kingdom" of Saudi Arabia. This Bedouin bunch got territory and in return the Brits lay claim to a lot of oil.  We also learn that the most vicious sect in all of Islam - the Wahabbists- was also founded in this kingdom. The documentary zooms in on their feral butchery over decades and how this vicious bunch of scum has now tainted all of Islam with its fanaticism. And lest Americans forget - given too many have the memory of gnats- let's recall it was 19 Wahabbi followers from Saudi Arabia that carried out the 9/11 attacks. It wasn't Taliban or Iranians.

All of this is germane to the Wall Street Journal editorial, 'Who Lost the Saudis?' (Jan. 3, p. A14) which bemoans that the Saudis "might be lost as we enter the last perilous year of the Obama presidency". My response? Who the fuck cares? We as a putative democratic nation allegedly dedicated to pursuit of liberty shouldn't be making any common cause with these deplorable rat bastards anyway!  Again, just in case people forget, this is the same kingdom that holds women guilty if they've been raped and has even been known to deliver thousands of lashes to the victims. It also beheads people who veer too far off the path and recently executed 47 they claimed to be "terrorists" - although in the Saudi kingdom that could mean merely speaking out against the regime.

Those executed included a prominent Shiite cleric, Nemer-al -Nemer, which has now inflamed tensions across the Middle East and has the Shiites in an uproar from Iran to Indonesia and in between..

As often seen on its op-ed pages, the WSJ editor goes off half-cocked in his jeremiad against Iran while forgetting about the Saudi transgressions. He appears to be especially worried about Iran and Russia joining up to "topple the House of Saud" - but again so what?  Someone needs to take out the garbage. Think of all those Saudi women who will now be spared 1,000  lashes because they were raped by their brothers! Think of all the Saudi rationalists and atheists who will now be spared their heads for speaking out.

The WSJ editor zooms in on Iran's alleged motive as Saudi oil production keeping the oil glut going and oil -gas prices low. The idiot doesn't even realize the Saudis are hurting the U.S. as much as Iran - given now the U.S fracking industry has gone into the crapper because the price of oil has fallen below the threshold at which it make it worthwhile to remove. (Not that I'm in favor of fracking, of course, only that this is the counterpoint to the WSJ's blaming Iran for Saudi contribution to the oil price plunge when the WSJ has always been enamored of U.S. fracking.)

The dumbest statement of all from this morass of bullshit:

"The Saudis are often difficult allies, especially the support by rich Wahabbi sheiks for radical Islamist mosques and schools around the world But in a Middle East wracked by civil wars, political upheaval and Iranian imperialism the Saudis are the best friend we have"

So, according to the WSJ editor, we are better off embracing this bunch that harbors "radical Wahabbi schools" that produced the 9/11 terrorists than making common cause with Iran. He refers to "Iranian imperialism" but conveniently forgets that WE - the U.S. - commenced Iran's march to a theocratic imperialism after we (at the behest of the CIA and affiliates) deposed Premier Mohammed Mossadegh in a coup d'etat.  His offense? He had sought to audit the books of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (AIOC), and implement new rules.

The eventual decision was to remove this man - the best chance at Iranian democracy  - by  the CIA via coup d'état  in Operation TPAJAX. So if Iran is "imperial" today we are the ones to blame, at least in terms of interfering in their then democratic processes by forcefully removing a head of state (like we did with Salvador Allende in Chile - except more violently in that case).

Let's be clear there is nothing in our Constitution that condones or approves of removing foreign heads of state, for whatever reason.

In some disinformationist quarters the CIA's role in the 1953 overthrow of Mossadegh is dismissed as a "myth" in the same way pro-Warrenites dismiss conspiracy in the JFK assassination as a myth - because it serves their nefarious interests to do so -- in bamboozling our fellow citizens. The truth is the CIA had its hands in the Mossadegh coup d'etat as much as they did in Kennedy's. You can read more details, including how the CIA actually admitted its role here:

http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/

Maybe by 2145 they will also admit their role in Kennedy's assassination  - long past the time anyone with any interest has died out.

In the meantime, no U.S. administration which professes to be truly against terrorists and "radical Islam" should have anything more to do with these assholes from the House of Saud.

See also:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-zuesse/65437/the-sauds-impunity

And:

http://www.salon.com/2016/01/06/saudi_arabia_funds_and_exports_islamic_extremism_the_truth_behind_the_toxic_u_s_relationship_with_the_theocratic_nation/

New Light On The Role Of Low Altitude Clouds In a Changing Climate

That the properties of clouds play a significant role in climate change models should not come as a huge surprise to anyone who's been paying attention. This is given the fact that Earth's climate is the product of complex interactions between the Sun, the ocean and the atmosphere. For reference, climate scientists explore these exchanges - especially between ocean and atmosphere - using general circulation models (GCM) which compute the respective circulations in ocean and atmosphere.

The GCMs take into account Earth's rotation as well as thermodynamic interactions such as radiation and latent heat. This is why  - for example - whenever I enter a public forum where climate change is being discussed (as I did over the weekend via an article in the Financial Times) I always publish a thermal physics test for the plethora of deniers popping off about "hoaxes". Because if they don't know the basics of thermal processes - including about evaporation, condensation, convection, latent heat, radiation, sublimation etc.-  they really are just parroting swill from the denier think tanks.

Anyway, a major headache has been how exactly clouds influence climate feedback.  Now, Hu et al (Geophysical Research Letters, 2015) have developed a methodology to identify how low lying tropical marine cloud cover responds to temperature changes in GCMs, thereby more precisely assessing the role of clouds in a changing climate.

The team first identified two major variables that control cloud coverage: latent heat flux and moisture gradient. The first describes the energy released as water evaporates from Earth's surface and collects in the troposphere. The second represents how moisture collects in the air with respect to altitude.  The important fact here is that the boundary layer closest to the Earth's surface gets drier with increasing altitude. (In the Hu et al study, sea surface temperature was used as a proxy for the two variables)

The investigators found that the cloud feedbacks created in GCMs could be attributed to three key changes. The first of these is stronger tropical inversions - or meteorological phenomena in which the normal stratification of the atmosphere is reversed so cool, moist air is trapped under warm, dry air. The stronger the inversion, the less mixing occurs between the boundary layer and the dry, upper part of the troposphere. . Less mixing produces a shallower, wetter, cloudier boundary layer.

The other changes are an increase in surface latent heat flux and an increase in the difference in moisture content at different heights - arising from a greater increase in moisture near the surface compared with higher altitudes. By contrast to the tropical inversions, these last two hinder the formation of cloud cover.

In general, the Hu team found that when the models accurately simulated the response of low cloud coverage to inversion strength and sea surface temperature variations, low cloud cover decreased. Note here that without the reflective layer provided by clouds, there is lower albedo so the Earth's surface absorbs more solar radiation. Thus, a decrease in cloud coverage can drive an overall increase in warming.

This recent work must therefore be seen in perspective with earlier research (Eos Transactions paper: 'Can Earth’s Albedo and Surface Temperature Increase Together’ in Vol. 87, No. 4, Jan. 24, 2006, p. 37) wherein the authors pointedly noted evidence that Earth’s albedo increased from 2000 to 2004 but that this had NOT led to a reversal in global warming. They also remarked on apparent temperature anomalies and divergence between differing altitudes but pointed to the differences between clouds at those altitudes.

The authors cited (to then) the most up to date cloud data from the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP). The data – from a range of meteorological satellites covering the entire Earth- disclosed the most likely reason for the anomaly was primarily in the redistribution of the clouds. As the authors observed:

"whereas low clouds have decreased during the most recent years, high clouds have increased to a larger extent leading to both an increase in cloud amount AND an increased trapping of infrared radiation.”

Clearly, further studies of cloud sensitivity are warranted and one hopes the Hu et al paper will provide a basis to improve on the GCM model forecast potential.

Obama Executive Actions Do Not Infringe On Second Amendment

Contrary to the hair on fire screeching  and hysteria of the Republicans,  Obama's executive actions on guns do not violate the 2nd amendment. NO one's AR-15s are being taken away, or the right to purchase guns - say at gun shows. You can stash as many as you want under the specific laws. All Obama has done is to institute rational actions to allay some of the craziness that has surrounded gun purchases. His actions include:

- Requiring internet gun dealers to be licensed and conduct background checks.

- Changing a federal privacy rule to keep people with mental illnesses from buying guns

-Asking congress to approve funding for 200 additional ATF agents.

- Hiring more than 230 additional FBI employees to help process background checks,

If we agree that a gun is at least as deadly a device as an automobile, and we don't allow any person to get behind the wheel without a license, then one ought to appreciate the need for these actions.  Indeed, many of us don't think Obama went far enough and we'd like to have seen closure of the loophole that currently allows de facto terrorists (on the 'no fly' list) to purchase any weapon they want. After the San Bernardino attack this is plain nuts.

Granted some of those individuals on the list may feel they don't belong there, but that is a separate issue they must take up with the TSA and have investigated to get their names removed. In the meantime, however, they should not be allowed to purchase handguns or long guns. But Obama never issued an action to that effect.

I would also have liked to see him issue an executive action mandating that dealers could not carry regular rifles, handguns etc. unless they also carried smart guns. These are weapons that only work if the owner identity is recognized. They will not work if a 5 year old kid picks up the gun and tries to fire it, say at his sister or playmate.  It is a rational solution to a lot of senseless gun deaths and only a crazy would deny it..

(Here Obama did seem to want to pursue something be done, as he noted in his press conference this morning: "If a child can't open a bottle of aspirin we should make sure he can't pull a trigger on a gun. Again totally sensible!)

But make no mistake, as tame as these executive actions are, the Repukes will go bananas and try to make political hay over them. What else would you expect their motley crew of candidate clowns to do in an election year.

But if they have a real problem, let them bring it before the courts and fight it out. I believe all they will have shown is how much time they can waste, just as they've wasted millions of hours trying to repeal the Affordable Care Act.

Lastly, the hysterical babble that Obama is "like Hitler" and "taking guns away as Hitler did" with the Jews is just plain old imbecility.  It is incredible anyone with an IQ over room temperature would even invoke this BS. Recall all Jewish gun ownership effectively ended on Nov. 11, 1938, when a new law was declared, prohibiting Jews from owning weapons of any kind, including swords, which many Jewish army veterans had kept as mementos from World War I.

The failure of Jews to mount an effective defense against the Waffen-SS in the Warsaw Ghetto in 1943 provides a good example of what would have happened on a large scale if Jews had tried to mount any sustained offensive against the Third Reich. In a word, the Nazis would have fire -hosed them to death house by house, and used heavy artillery too if they had to.  That would also have been the outcome in any case if German  ordinary citizens with small arms had attempted to go up against one of the most formidable military forces in history. The uprising in the Warsaw ghetto possesses enduring symbolic significance, as an instance of Jews’ determination to resist their oppression, but in the end they were stamped out like bugs - and no prisoners taken.

Yes, it would be better to "take a few Nazis" with you if the gas chambers were the only other option, but make no mistake a Pyrrhic victory is the only thing they won! In the end,  the uprising saved few Jewish lives and had little to no impact on the course of either World War II or the Holocaust. All it did is postpone the inevitable for some of the Jews in Warsaw.

 The idea (also)  that other Germans would have come to the Jews' defense is also malarkey that only a poorly educated (on history) moron could spout. Non-Jewish Germans knew full well the eyes of the Gestapo were on them 24/7 and one mistake - one neighbor's testimony - and they be in the torture chambers, getting minced 'bratwurst' enemas and nails ripped out.

So all these histrionic comparisons of Obama to Hitler really mean that that the blogger or whoever has just lost the argument before it even commenced.

Make no mistake that more than half the citizens in this country demand more action on guns and especially preventing them from getting into the wrong hands. Obama has provided at least a start in that direction.

See also:

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/eric-boehlert/65453/the-medias-missing-context-obamas-push-to-expand-background-checks-is-wildly-popular-with-gun-owners

Scalia Blabs Nonsense Again on Religious Neutrality

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia's notoriety for making absurd remarks in public forums is well known. Recall  his daffy pronouncements on the existence of the Devil. from an October 6, 2012 remark:

"In the Gospels, the Devil is doing all sorts of things. He's making pigs run off cliffs, he's possessing people and what not. And that doesn't happen much anymore. He used to be all over the New Testament...What happened to him? He got wilier!"

 Bill Maher's take on this idiocy on his Real Time show days later was exactly correct:

"I don't care why someone acts like a fool, only that when they do we keep them away from decision making. It would be one thing if Mr. Scalia sold pizza for a living. But this is a man we go to to interpret our laws. It's like smelling a gas leak and calling an exorcist.  Antonin Scalia helped put George Bush in the White House and he believes the Devil went down to Georgia. He gets to decide when life begins and he thinks evil is a person."

Maher went on to aptly point out the problem in believing in the Devil, is that you then see the world divided into two camps, one of 'good', the other of 'evil' and will then be inclined to see the "Evil One" on the side of 'them'- i.e. the others, who don't share your views .(More on this in a future post on the brain's tendency for social reduction).  It then is merely one step more to see compromising with your  opponents as compromising with evil. Then, Voila! You have the Tea Party.

In his latest demonstration that he is better fitted to be a pizza maker than Supreme Court Justice, he was speechifying at Catholic High School in the New Orleans' suburb of Metairie ('Justice Scalia Against Religious Neutrality', Denver Post, Jan. 3, p. 12A). He claimed there was "no place" in the country's constitutional traditions for the idea that the state (government) must be neutral between religion and its absence.

Making the rational person wonder if the constitution he's referring to is actually that of the Mullahs in Iran. Because the traditions I see show that there is no basis for a constitutional preference for any religion, or condemnation of its absence.

Also, Scalia's claim the country is a "Christian nation" is disproven by the simple expedient of examining the backgrounds of the Founders and what they wrote.

We can go first to the Treaty of Tripoli :

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html
Where we find written, in Article 11:

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries"

Did the authors just make that first line up to appease the "Mahometans"? I don't believe so. It was in fact an underlying tenet of their general Deist beliefs. Recall Deism isn't the same as Christianity.  For example, in the Deist view an innominate, impersonal Intelligence created the cosmos - but then detached from it - so there's no further involvement.

The Deist God, to give an analogy, is analogous to an intelligent child who makes a toy with a gear wheel, and the toy has the ability to move after being wound up and released. Thus, the child makes the toy, winds it up, releases it down the sidewalk, then walks away never to glance at it or its final outcome, destination. In this case, the child plays an analogous role to the ambiguous first cause of deism and the toy is analogous to the universe.

Strictly speaking, therefore, Deism treated in its orthodox and traditional manner is not Theism. Deism is, in fact, only one step removed from atheism. The atheist avers there is no one or nothing "minding the store" and so does the deist.  We know nearly all the Founders, the actual authors of the Constitution were hard core Deists, not Theists.

Thus, Scalia misled the Catholic students he addressed by trying to tell them the U.S. is a Christian nation. And as Deists, those Founders would never have claimed as Scalia has that "God has been very good to very good to us. That we won the Revolution was extraordinary and the Battle of Midway ..."   But the Deist god does not involve itself in human events, so he's overextending the role of his deity beyond what the authors intended.

Scalia would have done better to quote the words of one of the primary Deists and Constitution authors, Thomas Jefferson:

"I am for freedom of religion, and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another." --Thomas Jefferson to Elbridge Gerry, 1799. ME 10:78
The above is particularly apropos as it dispenses with Scalia's nonsense that the Christian religion in the U.S. is superior or "ascendant" with respect to all others. Or enjoys any advantages over others, each of which Jefferson calls "sects".

Then we have one of the most important:

"Believing... that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." --Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists, 1802. ME 16:281

This paved the way for the well known principle of the wall of separation between church and state. In effect, there can be NO state religion or preference for such, i.e. such as existed at the time in England with the King reigning not only as monarch but as head of the Anglican faith. Hence, it is bollocks for Scalia to talk to these students as if Christianity in general is a state religion for the U.S.

Other statements by Jefferson:

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle." --Thomas Jefferson to Richard Rush, 1813.

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." --Thomas Jefferson to Edward Dowse, 1803. ME 10:378

"Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." --Thomas Jefferson to Miles King, 1814. ME 14:198

Incidentally, Jefferson- on becoming disillusioned with so much in the KJV Bible - undertook to write his own version - divested of the humbug and what he took to be ahistorical additions. That version is available here:

http://www.amazon.com/Jefferson-Bible-Thomas/dp/0807077143

The Catholic high school kids Scalia addressed would be better served ordering a copy of this book and reading it, than attending to Scalia's idiocy and ahistorical claptrap.

'The Great Prostate Hoax' - A Must Read Book For Every American Male

When the doctor who discovered PSA writes a book about how the PSA test is basically a sham, and a device used to amass tens of billions of bucks for the urology sector of the medical industrial complex, you have to pay attention. Dr. Richard J. Ablin, author of 'The Great Prostate Hoax' described his discovery of the prostate specific antigen in 1970 as comparable to "the thrill of looking through a microscope and peering into the unknown reaches of space".

That thrill soon tempered by the misuse of a test (PSA) never designed to be cancer detection specific and hence "opening the floodgates for a tsunami of routine nationwide testing" (p. 7).  Dr. Ablin is adamant that the FDA made a "fateful error" to approve the PSA test as a means to detect prostate cancer. But as Ablin notes, PSA is even in healthy tissue and it can spike from all manner of external stimuli including: riding a bicycle, riding a horse, or after a rectal exam or colonoscopy. So what the hell use is it? Virtually none, as Dr. Ablin makes clear.

All it does, according to Ablin, is result in nearly a million risky biopsies a year - to the tune of billions of bucks for urologists- as well as tens thousands of unnecessary radical prostatectomies leaving most of those men mere shadows of their former selves. Often incontinent as well as impotent - even using Viagra every day and getting costly penile implants.

Ablin cites Dr. Alan Shapiro (p. 192) - once a promoter of the PSA- whose wake up call on the unnecessary harms caused by PSA testing arrived "when a 50 year old man came to his urology practice wearing a condom catheter - a flexible, condom -like sheath that fits over the penis and is attached to a tube that drains the urine into a storage bag."

As Dr. Shapiro put it (ibid.):

"This relatively young guy had a radical prostatectomy and now he couldn't get an erection or control his urine. He was crippled. "

This was five years before Ablin and Shapiro decided to make their documentary, 'Second Opinion', showing men who'd undergone the procedure recounting their experiences and later suffering. All the men lament the predictable trajectory that imprinted and ultimately altered the quality of their lives: the initial PSA test or tests, the advice to then get a biopsy because of a "spike" and finally the urging of the urologists to get treatment- usually radical prostatectomy because each one of those puts the biggest bucks into their pockets.

Hence, urology has become - thanks to PSA testing - one of the most lucrative branches of the medical industrial complex.

Ablin notes men are often pushed "to have it out" and so the initial reaction to a PSA spike or high level is an emotional response, often from their wives asking - "Can you really live with that cancer inside you?" Failing to realize that after their hubby follows her imperative he will no longer be able to have any kind of sex with her. Thus we behold the power of naked emotion to sway sound scientific judgment. Of course, there are exceptions - but these are not the "rule" - something its eager advocates forget or neglect.

Ablin essentially insists a man ceases to be a man in many vital respects, after this surgery. He writes for example (p. 36):

"A man can live without his prostate but once it is removed he suffers varying degrees of physical and psychological changes."

He goes on to quote one patient who actually wrote a book, 'I Want My Prostate Back':

"He wasn't the same man after the robotic surgery and pulled no punches talking about it. In an article in Men's Health, he wrote: 'Without any ejaculate I felt like a broken toy, like a water pistol that squirts jelly. Or nothing"

Harsh words but he cuts through the BS surrounding the test, just as Dr. Ablin does in his book, including all the flack he's taken from the nabobs who are trying to protect their profitable lives.

Perhaps the best chapter is Six: Unintended Consequences, wherein we learn of the battle between the American Urology Association (AUA) and the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, which had noted as early as 1993:

"The Task Force has determined that PSA screening fails to meet the criteria for effective screening. The test lacks accuracy in detecting early stage disease. There is little evidence that early detection of prostate cancer improves patient outcomes and there is mounting evidence of the adverse effects of testing and treatment."

It took nearly 20 years of ongoing PR battles with the urologists - remember they pocket a pretty penny from biopsies as well as surgeries - before the Task Force recommendations became generally accepted and have now  - in the past year- yielded for the first time fewer biopsies as well as cancers detected. While a segment of the pro-PSA bunch is still left to hair on fire screeching, blasting that "all those men not getting screened are playing with their lives" the evidence simply isn't there.

As Ablin notes,  prostate cancer is an inevitable disease of aging. By age 65 nearly half of all man have some manner of "neoplasm" in their prostates. By age 85 it is nearly 95%. What? We're going to cut out all those cancers despite the fact they're all likely to die of anything but prostate cancer?

Let's also bear in mind that Richard Ablin's take on the PSA test is not new. Years before we beheld medical author Shannon Brownlee's take, in her book 'Untreated: Why Too Much Medicine is Making Us Sicker and Poorer' (2007, p. 202):

"The evidence suggests that PSA testing is not saving any lives, and even it is the large numbers of men who are treated unnecessarily are paying a terrible price. They're the equivalent of civilian casualties in our war on cancer.".

That take very nearly resembles Ablin's of havoc wrought across the years by this screening test which actually isn't cancer specific.

Yes, in the interest of full disclosure,  I did have radiation therapy treatment myself - under pressure from my wife, my urologist, my primary doc and others. BUT......as a fellow Intertel member emailed me (soon after I wrote about the experience in the Intertel Regional Newsletter 'Port of Call') I might also have lived with only minor problems (the cancer stage was T1c) and croaked eventually  of something else. This is because 97% of prostate cancers are slow growing. (Incredibly, 99% of males autopsied who are 80 years or older  are found to have prostate cancer .....and most never knew about it!)

Even if you're an avowed and dedicated believer in PSA screening, you should try to get this book and at least see another point of view. Those who are in the age range for such tests, or have medical providers who recommend getting it, absolutely should read this book first.

See also:
https://www.inspire.com/groups/us-too-prostate-cancer/discussion/psa-test-is-misused-unreliable-says-the-antigens-discoverer/?page=4

Healthy Eating In 2016: Differentiating Between 'Natural', 'Organic' and Non-GMO Foods

According to a CBS online poll given yesterday morning, 41 percent of Americans have a New Year's resolution to "eat healthier" and that includes adopting a healthier lifestyle. But it's easier said than done given most folks don't even know how many calories are in a small popcorn (1079) when they go to the cinema and most don't know the difference between natural, organic and non-GMO foods.

I myself don't believe in New Year's "resolutions" which are more about ostentatious self-promotion and predicated on false confidence. I do believe that one ought to realize the need to eat healthy - at least most of the time, anyway - which basically means you don't have Egg McMuffins for breakfast every day and don't gorge on burgers or steaks for main meals. Thus, common sense has to enter the picture to avoid debilitating diseases such as arteriosclerosis, diabetes etc.

Now, given one wants to eat healthier in the new year for one's own long term benefit - not any special one year "resolution" - how does one tell the difference between foods touted as natural, organic and non-GMO? It's difficult because many food producers adopt the names only as marketing ploys.

But here are the basic distinctions in a nutshell:

"Natural" generally refers to foods that have no preservatives or anti-biotics. Generally, you have to look beyond the wrappers with the healthy leaves and trees on them to the actual contents. If you see a lot of chemical names - which you can't pronounce- then it's not really "natural".

"Organic" (according to the USDA) means producers must keep out most synthetic pesticides and certain fertilizers and that animals used to produce these foods (e.g. chickens) are able to get outdoors year -round and aren't given anti-biotics.

In addition, organic "is non-GMO" according to Cathy Calfo, executive director of California Certified Organic Farmers.

Non-GMO:

She also added "Non-GMO is not organic" (WSJ, Dec. 9, p. B1)

Here's the deal (ibid.):

"The federal government doesn't regulate non-GMO labeling.  Instead certification is done by private groups, mainly the non-GMO project. "

These groups also allow the use of synthetic pesticides, but they do more stringent tests to ensure GMOs aren't inadvertently mixed into ingredients during transportation or production.

The best food choice then would appear to be organic. You get the benefit of non-GMO but also the absence of the synthetic pesticides that over time can cause cancers.

Non-GMO food purchases, meanwhile, have grown by 70 percent over the past year and are projected to increase even more in 2016. This preference is also why the GMO food producers don't want labeling. They'd rather deny the American citizen the right to know what's in foods than to lose profits.

Beyond all the kerfuffle about natural, organic and non-GMO, the biggest difference one can make to eating healthier is to knock out the sugary confections like candy bars, M&Ms and the like. Those are the main culprits undermining the nation's health. If you want sugars go for the natural ones, i.e. in oranges, apples, grapes etc.

Given my battle to reduce blood glucose that is my foremost challenge this year and I can say that so far I am succeeding.  I've had no sugary confections since Thanksgiving.

2016: A Year Of Climate And Political Upheaval

As usual the million or so in Times Square rang in the New Year with much fanfare as well as endless rock groups and the usual funny hats - this time highlighting 'Planet Fitness' .  When the big ball hit bottom - Time T zero - the crowd erupted in jubilation and the faces betrayed an expectation that this year would truly be happy, as opposed to yet another downer.

It's always an expectation worth having, but seldom realized on the global level (though it may well be for the favored few on the individual level).  What I want to do here is to look ahead and see what might be coming our way in the realms of the economy, climate, global policy and  national politics. In general I foresee many more upheavals, especially as climate change continues to accelerate and ISIS seeks to make a 'last stand' with its "caliphate" nonsense.


Economy:

Most Americans are already aware the Federal Reserve finally raised interest rates by a quarter of a point last month,  after nearly eight years of near zero rates.  As the rates increase by four times or more in the coming year the markets will be rattled as stocks will no longer have the virtual "free money" from the Fed's bond buyback program (quantitative easing) to rely on.  Coupled with the higher interest rates investors will have to contend with dropping oil prices as the glut continues, as well as volatilities in the commodities markets. Stocks, as the WSJ noted two days ago are already priced sky high so there may be few places to put money if people want more yield.

I don't foresee a recession or anything but people ought to be aware of the underlying sources of volatility and perhaps be prepared for a market correction later in the year, likely October. Smart citizens will use whatever bounty they get  -from more $$$ saved on gas, or raises - to salt savings away, pay off debts and not take on new debts.

Climate:

The freakish weather with skewed jet stream and effect of El Nino last month ought to have alerted people to what lies ahead, especially this spring. Alas, the flooding,  F4 etc. tornadoes in December 2015 will be just a prelude to events this spring. Also, expect a summer like no other before with extended heat waves lasting up to two weeks or more. People will be pining for the "balmy"  days of December - at least those in the eastern U.S.

Sea level rise and its threat to small island nations, e.g. Vanuatu, will continue especially as the rate of glacier melting is increasing. According to a paper published in Nature last month by Kristian K. Kjeldsen in concert with 15 other authors, the Greenland ice sheet has lost an astounding 9,103 gigatons since 1900. Most importantly, the rate of loss has been increasing with a doubling of annual loss between 2003 and 2010.

The complex work entailed using a merger of multiple information sources, including: distinct marks let by retreating glaciers, extensive aerial photography, and satellite observations to infer the total mass loss of the ice sheet. The paper indicates the glacier retreat and ice loss was incepted around 1900 at the end of a cooling period as human -caused global warming kicked in, e.g. with the advent of the automobile and much more fossil fuel burning, especially from coal.

Global Policy:

Global policy will focus mainly on the terror bogey posed by ISIS. The recent victory by Iraqi troops in driving these bugs from Ramadi will be used as a pivot point to further oust these rats from their burrows, as it should.  At the same time, nations will ramp up  security, and right wing groups in Europe - including Marine Le Pen's National Front - will continue to howl as a million new refugees from the Middle East pour in. At some point the EU may realize that its Schengen accord simply can't work since it allows terrorists to easily pass through borders (And has also allowed gun running, mainly from Slovakia, into Western Europe).

Iran will also be a focus as the Obama administration is already putting out new sanctions for perceived infractions  in the recent nuclear deal. (Iran has protested that any such imposition of sanctions is a violation by the U.S. of the agreement).

Meanwhile, at home there will be pressure to increase NSA mass surveillance and have tech firms cooperate by allowing "back door" entry of the security state into much used devices and apps like 'What's App'.  But this will be strongly resisted. Also, as WSJ columnist William  Galston noted in a recent column:

"We remain the land of the free, but are we still  the 'home of the brave'?"

Well, maybe not so much if we allow ourselves to continue to be gamed by the terror card, failing to appreciate the risk is far greater that we will be felled by cancer than by a terrorist's bullets or bombs.  As Galston also points out:

"During the past decade seven times more Americans died from lightning strikes in the U.S. than at the hands of Islamic terrorists".

And as I wrote in a post last month, more than 200,000 Americans have been killed by their fellow citizens using easily purchased weapons (such as the AR-15)  compared to only 48 killed by terrorists. Based on these figures, it's time we got our perceptions in order - meaning in accord with reality.

National Politics:

This will likely be as big a source of upheaval as the climate events facing us. The Republican Party itself faces internal upheaval fomented by the rise of populist Donald Trump - who, if not brought back to Earth in the caucuses and primaries - could spawn a contentious convention in Cleveland this summer.

Trump is an enigma as well as an aberration to Republicans, which has caused a certain segment to develop the conspiracy theory that he is really a "Hillary Trojan horse" - to blow up the GOP nomination. This is based on the records showing his having voted for Obama in 2008, and also photos showing the Clintons at his wedding.  Hence, the GOP conspiracy theorists distrust that Trump is truly one of their own and not a Clinton "plant".

All of this may be much ado over nothing. Trump, despite his rise in the polls, still has to translate all that populist energy and his poll numbers into actual primary and caucus wins. But can he? Many Trump supporters interviewed in recent days say they are not sure whether they will caucus in Iowa. That is where the bear sit with the buckwheat, so to speak. Caucusing is not like just pulling a lever in a voting booth, it entails going out on a likely frigid night in February and meeting with other supporters of different candidates to talk and jaw about good points and bad of the respective candidates then coming to an agreement. It can last for hours, and while Trumpies may love yelling at his rallies it remains to be seen if they will actually caucus.

In addition, recent reports (in the WSJ, and TIME)  disclose that it is actually Ted Cruz who has the ground organization in Iowa and NH. It is his team that is going door to door to make sure people will actually show up to caucus, or cast ballots.  Trump, despite his bluster and polls, has no similar ground game so rational observers see him having a hard time winning.

In terms of the Democrats, Bernie Sanders needs to win in Iowa and New Hampshire to engender any kind of momentum and "upheaval". Right now the signs aren't good, and the ridiculous low profile debates sponsored by the DNC haven't helped him gain as much name recognition as he'd like. It appears quite evident that DNC Hillary supporters like Debbie Wasserman-Schulz realized for "Hill" to prevail they needed to keep the Dem debates to a minimum and also at nonsensical times, like Saturday night (for the last one) and on a Sunday with NFL Playoff games for the next.

But we will see. Despite the efforts to keep Bernie at bay, none of it may work if he can catch fire especially with more African Americans.

On that note, Happy New Year! At least let's hope it's happier than the last!