Tag Archives: humans

The Birds of Pandemonium – Michele Raffin

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

The Birds of Pandemonium

Michele Raffin

Genre: Nature

Price: $1.99

Publish Date: October 7, 2014

Publisher: Algonquin Books

Seller: Workman Publishing Co., Inc.


“Michele Raffin has made an important contribution to saving endangered birds, and her book is a fascinating and rarely seen glimpse behind the scenes. The joy she gets from her close relationships with these amazing animals and her outsized commitment to them comes through loud and clear in this engaging and joyful book.” —Dominick Dorsa, Curator of Birds, San Francisco Zoo Each morning at first light, Michele Raffin awakens to the bewitching music that heralds another day at Pandemonium Aviaries—a symphony that swells from the most vocal of over 350 avian throats representing over 40 species. “It knocks me out, every day,” she admits.  Pandemonium Aviaries is a conservation organization dedicated to saving and breeding birds at the edge of extinction, including some of the largest populations of rare species in the world. And their behavior is even more fascinating than their glorious plumage or their songs. They fall in love, they mourn, they rejoice, they sacrifice, they have a sense of humor, they feel jealous, they invent, plot, cope, and sometimes they murder each other. As Raffin says, “They teach us volumes about the interrelationships of humans and animals.” Their stories make up the heart of this book. There’s Sweetie, a tiny quail with an outsize personality; the inspiring Oscar, a Lady Gouldian finch who can’t fly but finds a way to reach the highest perches of his aviary to roost. The ecstatic reunion of a disabled Victoria crowned pigeon, Wing, and her brother, Coffee, is as wondrous as the silent kinship that develops between Amadeus, a one-legged turaco, and an autistic young visitor. Ultimately, The Birds of Pandemonium is about one woman’s crusade to save precious lives, bird by bird, and offers insights into how following a passion can transform not only oneself but also the world. “Delightful . . . full of wonderful accounts of bird behavior, demonstrating caring, learning, sociability, adaptability, and a will to live. Its appeal is ageless, her descriptions riveting, and her devotion to the birds remarkable.” — Joanna Burger, author of  The Parrot Who Owns Me: The Story of a Relationship “A remarkable book. Reading about the birds of Pandemonium will make you laugh and cry; it will make you see more clearly the need to take care of our planet; and it will confirm that one person with a passion can make a difference.” —Jeff Corwin, nature conservationist and host, Animal Planet “ The Birds of Pandemonium touched me deeply . . . This book is about reconnecting with the nature of birds, and the nature of ourselves.”  —Jon Young, author of What the Robin Knows

Continued: 

The Birds of Pandemonium – Michele Raffin

Posted in alo, Anchor, Crown, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Birds of Pandemonium – Michele Raffin

Behave – Robert M. Sapolsky

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Behave

The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst

Robert M. Sapolsky

Genre: Life Sciences

Price: $18.99

Publish Date: May 2, 2017

Publisher: Penguin Publishing Group

Seller: Penguin Group (USA) Inc.


Why do we do the things we do? Over a decade in the making, this game-changing book is Robert Sapolsky's genre-shattering attempt to answer that question as fully as perhaps only he could, looking at it from every angle. Sapolsky's storytelling concept is delightful but it also has a powerful intrinsic logic: he starts by looking at the factors that bear on a person's reaction in the precise moment a behavior occurs, and then hops back in time from there, in stages, ultimately ending up at the deep history of our species and its genetic inheritance. And so the first category of explanation is the neurobiological one. What goes on in a person's brain a second before the behavior happens? Then he pulls out to a slightly larger field of vision, a little earlier in time: What sight, sound, or smell triggers the nervous system to produce that behavior? And then, what hormones act hours to days earlier to change how responsive that individual is to the stimuli which trigger the nervous system? By now, he has increased our field of vision so that we are thinking about neurobiology and the sensory world of our environment and endocrinology in trying to explain what happened. Sapolsky keeps going–next to what features of the environment affected that person's brain, and then back to the childhood of the individual, and then to their genetic makeup. Finally, he expands the view to encompass factors larger than that one individual. How culture has shaped that individual's group, what ecological factors helped shape that culture, and on and on, back to evolutionary factors thousands and even millions of years old. The result is one of the most dazzling tours de horizon of the science of human behavior ever attempted, a majestic synthesis that harvests cutting-edge research across a range of disciplines to provide a subtle and nuanced perspective on why we ultimately do the things we do…for good and for ill. Sapolsky builds on this understanding to wrestle with some of our deepest and thorniest questions relating to tribalism and xenophobia, hierarchy and competition, morality and free will, and war and peace. Wise, humane, often very funny, Behave is a towering achievement, powerfully humanizing, and downright heroic in its own right.

Taken from:  

Behave – Robert M. Sapolsky

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Oster, PUR, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Behave – Robert M. Sapolsky

Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War – Mary Roach

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War

Mary Roach

Genre: Life Sciences

Price: $12.99

Publish Date: June 7, 2016

Publisher: W. W. Norton & Company

Seller: W. W. Norton


A New York Times / National Bestseller "America's funniest science writer" (Washington Post) Mary Roach explores the science of keeping human beings intact, awake, sane, uninfected, and uninfested in the bizarre and extreme circumstances of war. Grunt tackles the science behind some of a soldier's most challenging adversaries—panic, exhaustion, heat, noise—and introduces us to the scientists who seek to conquer them. Mary Roach dodges hostile fire with the U.S. Marine Corps Paintball Team as part of a study on hearing loss and survivability in combat. She visits the fashion design studio of U.S. Army Natick Labs and learns why a zipper is a problem for a sniper. She visits a repurposed movie studio where amputee actors help prepare Marine Corps medics for the shock and gore of combat wounds. At Camp Lemmonier, Djibouti, in east Africa, we learn how diarrhea can be a threat to national security. Roach samples caffeinated meat, sniffs an archival sample of a World War II stink bomb, and stays up all night with the crew tending the missiles on the nuclear submarine USS Tennessee. She answers questions not found in any other book on the military: Why is DARPA interested in ducks? How is a wedding gown like a bomb suit? Why are shrimp more dangerous to sailors than sharks? Take a tour of duty with Roach, and you’ll never see our nation’s defenders in the same way again.

More:  

Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War – Mary Roach

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, Oster, PUR, Uncategorized, W. W. Norton & Company | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Grunt: The Curious Science of Humans at War – Mary Roach

This Florida Community May Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes to Fight Zika and Dengue

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Genetically engineered mosquitoes may sound like a sci-fi superbug out of a Stephen Spielberg film, but these are the real deal. The altered insects are the latest approach to quell the spread of mosquito-borne diseases that claim an estimated 725,000 lives globally each year, not to mention Zika virus, which has spread rapidly in the Americas and causes alarming birth defects—and could turn out to affect the adult brain, too—but seldom kills.

Earlier this month, the FDA approved the first proposed US field trial of genetically modified mosquitoes. The trial is planned to launch in Key Haven, Florida, 161 miles south of the Miami-Dade neighborhood where the nation’s first locally transmitted Zika cases have been detected—and five miles from the the heart of Florida’s 2009-2010 outbreak of dengue, a potentially deadly virus that can be spread by the same mosquito. Local opposition has stalled the release of the altered bugs, even as the Zika virus continues to spread in South Florida. Now residents in this island community will get to weigh in on the fate of the trial via a nonbinding local referendum this November. A majority of the mosquito control commissioners for the Keys, who have final say in the matter, have vowed to side with the locals. If a trial is approved, the mosquitoes could be let loose as early as December.

Whether it happens this time or not, the interest in fighting mosquitoes with high-tech methods is only growing. In science labs across the globe, researchers are studying parasitic microbes, various types of genetic modifications, and even new techniques that, in theory, could nearly eradicate local mosquito populations or make it impossible for the mosquitoes to transmit a given disease. In the meantime, here’s what you should know about the proposed release in South Florida.

How are these mosquitoes modified?
Scientists at Oxitec, a UK-based company that has spent years honing its techniques in the lab and in the field, have altered Aedes aegypti—the primary mosquito conduit for Zika, dengue, yellow fever, and chikungunya—with a gene that causes its progeny to die in the larval stage. The researchers sort the altered mosquitoes by sex and release only the males, which then go out and mate with wild females, dooming their offspring. The modified mosquitoes, which can only survive a few days outside the climate-controlled comforts of a laboratory, also carry a gene for a fluorescent protein that lets researchers distinguish modified mosquitoes from wild ones. Both of the inserted genes are non-toxic and non-allergenic.

What if one of these mosquitoes were to bite me?
Assuming just males are released, they won’t—only females bite, because they need your blood to nourish their eggs. A few females get past the screening, but they comprise less than 0.2 percent of the insects released, and the chance of getting bit by one of these rare females is lower still. In the unlikely event that you are bitten by a modified mosquito, the result will be no different than with an ordinary one, according to Matthew DeGennero, a mosquito neurogeneticist at Florida International University. Mosquitoes have been around for 210 million years, he points out, yet we have no evidence that they’ve ever been able to transfer their DNA to any other organisms, including the ones they feed on.

But can’t releasing one organism to control another one mess with the natural balance?
Sure. Humans have made plenty of such blunders trying to control pests. Hawaii’s mongoose infestation, Australia’s poisonous cane toads, and Canada’s thistle-eating weevils are just a few examples of “biocontrol” gone awry. The difference with the Oxitec mosquitoes is that, unlike the introduced species of the past, they are engineered to disappear quickly. It’s actually a great business model, because the mosquito control boards will have to keep purchasing from Oxitec to keep local mosquito populations suppressed. But it also makes it easier to deal with unintended consequences—which the FDA deems unlikely in any case.

One valid concern is that reducing the numbers of Aedes aegypti may allow its cousin Aedes albopictus—which is capable of transmitting the same viruses—to move in. But in addition to being a less-efficient disease carrier, albopictus can have somewhat different habits and meal preferences. Aegypti feed almost exclusively on human blood, and tend to live alongside people in densely populated areas. Albopictus is just as prone to feeding on wildlife and livestock, and tends to stay in more rural settings, where they are less likely to spread disease. But they also show up in places like Los Angeles. In short, it’s complicated.

How will the GM mosquitoes affect other animals that feed on mosquitoes?
Most insect eaters have broad diets, so there’s no evidence that eliminating a specific mosquito will leave anyone without food. Nor will snacking on GM mosquitoes harm the birds, bats, and other fauna that eat the bloodsuckers. On the contrary, DeGennaro says, releasing modified mosquitos is a lot less harmful to the environment than spraying nasty chemicals. Each year 15 million acres across the US are doused in Naled, a neurotoxic insecticide used to keep mosquito populations in check. “Insecticides are very problematic for the environment,” DeGennaro says. “They disturb the ecosystem and affect insects other than the one you’re targeting.” Banned in Europe, Naled is known to kill bees, butterflies, birds, and fish indiscriminately. For this reason, Puerto Rico refused to accept Naled shipments from the US government to combat its Zika epidemic, even though a 20-25 percent infection rate is expected there by summer’s end. The United States, however, deploys tens of thousands of gallons of Naled annually to control Aedes aegypti. The FDA has concluded that the risk GM mosquitos pose for humans and other species is extremely low: “I can’t think of a potential problem with this,” DeGennaro says. “But I can think of a million potential problems with insecticides.”

What if I don’t want to be a guinea pig?
You won’t be, really. Oxitec has already released modified mosquitoes in several countries, including Malaysia, Brazil, and Panama—and more than three million altered skeeters lived out their short lives in the Cayman Islands in 2009 during the company’s first field trial. The proposed trial in the Keys isn’t intended to test the mosquitoes’ safety or environmental impacts—Oxitec has spent 14 years on such studies already. Rather, the purpose is to determine whether the altered mosquitoes can reduce Aedes aegypti populations in this environment the way they’ve done so elsewhere. Oxitec reports that wild aegypti populations have been slashed by more than 90 percent in areas where its mosquitoes were released. Given that aegypti puts more than 40 percent of the world’s population at risk for various diseases, those figures could prove convincing to many health and safety officials—at least until an effective vaccines becomes available.

Genetic tinkering is hardly new, of course. “Humans have been genetically modifying organisms since the dawn of civilization,” DeGennero says. “That’s why we have crops and domestic animals.” For nearly three decades, diabetics have been injecting themselves with insulin produced by genetically modified bacteria. In 2015, 444 million acres of genetically modified seed was planted across the globe, and genetically engineered salmon may be on the menu as early as next year. “This technology has potential to save people’s lives,” DeGennero says. “I would happily have these mosquitos where I live.”

View post: 

This Florida Community May Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes to Fight Zika and Dengue

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Florida Community May Unleash Genetically Modified Mosquitoes to Fight Zika and Dengue

Homemade Pepper Spray: To Deter Garden Critters Naturally

I’m the crazy lady who talks to squirrels and pigeons. When I was a kid, it was a rare thrill to see a few deer in the backyard. Now the deer literally walk up our street and wander in and out of the neighborhood yards, brazenly munching on whatever suits them.

If you are a gardener, you’ve probably experienced the frustration of planting seeds or seedlings and nurturing them to the point where the buds are abundant only to come out one morning and see sad, stubby green stems as if someone accidentally weed-whacked your beloved plants.

I’m not inclined towards violence, but I would seriously like to deter them. So, one of the best deterrents for most of these critters has been hot pepper spray. It turns out thecapsaicin found in hot peppers of the Capsicum genus are distasteful to mammals like deer, squirrels, rabbits, voles, possum, groundhogs, chipmunks and some insects. It doesn’t harm them, the environment, the plants or the humans who might eat them.

You can buy a variety of capsaicin sprays, but they tend to get expensive, and homemade pepper sprayis actually super easy to make.

The trick is to spray frequently as soon as you see evidence a critteris poaching your plants, and make sure to respray after rain. If you are consistent about applying weekly (or any time after rain), hopefully the uninvited guests will move on to tastier gardens.

Green Diva Meg’s Homemade Pepper Spray Recipe

What you need:

1 gallon of water
3 tablespoons crushed red pepper flakes
2 teaspoons castile soap (I used peppermint because it can be an insect repellent)
spray bottle (either a couple of them or a gallon container to keep what doesn’t fit in the spray bottle)
funnel

What to do:

add the red pepper flakes to the water in a large pot and simmer for about 15 minutes
stir in castile soap (important to help the concoction stick to the plants)
take off the heat and let stand for 24 hours
strain out the pepper flakes
and use funnel to pour into your spray bottle
NOTE: be mindful that the cooking liquid can cause some irritation to nose and eyes, and of course the liquid itself can be irritating.

Bonus:

Heres the latest episode of The Green Divas Radio Show for more on green and healthy living

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

This article:  

Homemade Pepper Spray: To Deter Garden Critters Naturally

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, organic gardening, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Homemade Pepper Spray: To Deter Garden Critters Naturally

In a Googol Years, Our Universe Will Be Empty

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

The universe will die. Eventually it will become nothing. In roughly a quadrillion years, a last star will give its last twinkle, and black holes will devour everything before they completely evaporate. And in a googol years (that’s 10 to the hundredth power, which is a lot), the universe will be empty. Physicists speculate that emptiness will last for an infinite time period.

The universe, both its origin and its end, is the topic for this week’s Inquiring Minds podcast, where neuroscientist Indre Viskontas talks with Sean Carroll, a theoretical physicist and professor at CalTech with a background in cosmology, gravity, and extra dimensions. You can listen to their full conversation below:

Here are some highlights from the interview:

The Big Bang might not have been the beginning. Humans love to put things in chronological order. We are slaves to our definitions of past, present, and future. But the inevitable passage of time isn’t a fundamental law for physics. So the very thing we label as the beginning, the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, may not have been the true start. “The universe could be eternal, or it could have had a beginning…Our theories just aren’t good enough to extrapolate backward.”

The end may not be the end, either. And even though the universe will eventually be gone, that doesn’t mean it will be the complete end. Little pieces—baby universes, if you will—can “pinch off,” Carroll says, and start their own universes. Ours could have come from this process. “We don’t know why our early universe was so small, so tiny,” says Carroll. “One possible explanation is that it came out of a preexisting space time that was just sort of sitting there quietly.”

We aren’t beings, we’re processes. The thought of being a human may be nice, but Carroll breaks it down in terms fit for a physicist. Our bodies are nothing but chemical reactions that occur while we’re alive—and, after that, different chemical reactions that happen when we die. An average life span consists of about 3 billion heartbeats. For some, this perspective might seem depressing. After all, what’s the point of those heartbeats when weighed against the gravity of the universe? (See young Alvy Singer below, for example.)

But for Carroll, it’s just the opposite. “If you think that all you get are those 3 billion heartbeats, then what happens here—to your life, to the people you know, and to the world you can affect—that matters enormously to me,” he says.

So yes, Alvy, the universe is expanding, but you still have to do your homework.

Inquiring Minds is a podcast hosted by neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas and Kishore Hari, the director of the Bay Area Science Festival. To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes or RSS. You can follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow, like us on Facebook, and check out show notes and other cool stuff on Tumblr.

View original post here: 

In a Googol Years, Our Universe Will Be Empty

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In a Googol Years, Our Universe Will Be Empty

Is It Finally Time For a UBI?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

UBI is having a moment. Not a big moment, mind you, but a moment nonetheless. Why?

UBI stands for Universal Basic Income, and it’s just what it sounds like. It guarantees everyone, rich and poor alike, a certain minimum cash income and replaces the alphabet soup of current welfare programs. No more food stamps. No more Section 8. No more unemployment compensation.

On the right, UBI got a boost a few years ago from Charles Murray, who championed the idea in his book In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State. On the left, the rise of Bernie Sanders has given it a bit of new momentum, even though it’s not part of Bernie’s campaign platform. It’s also gotten some attention thanks to planned experiments in Finland and the Netherlands, and a referendum for a national UBI in Switzerland this summer. On his Freakonomics podcast last week, Stephen Dubner suggests it’s “an idea whose time finally may have come.”

So what are the pros and cons? Here’s a quick, extremely non-exhaustive rundown.

THE GOOD

#1: A UBI eliminates bad work incentives.

There’s a problem inherent with all means-tested welfare benefits: they phase out as you make more money. Suppose you make $15,000 per year, and above that point you lose 50 cents of welfare benefits for every dollar you earn. This means that working more hours or taking a more challenging job doesn’t pay much. On net, a raise of $5,000 per year only gets you $2,500 of actual compensation. This reduces the incentive to work harder in order to escape poverty. But a UBI is different: Since you continue to receive a UBI no matter what your income, it has no effect on work incentives.

#2: A UBI reduces admin costs.

Means-tested programs all have to be administered, and that costs money. A UBI reclaims nearly all of that. The government just sends out a monthly check to every citizen, and that’s it. Admin costs are minuscule.

#3: A UBI allows the poor to live freer lives.

Poor people no longer have to endure a demanding gauntlet of welfare offices and complicated forms. They don’t have to prove their income is low, or that they have kids, or that they’re actively looking for work. Nor do they have to accept only the specific forms of welfare the government feels like giving them. They just get a check every month, and they can spend it as they please.

THE BAD

#1: It costs a fortune.

A reasonable UBI would probably amount to about $10,000 per year, which works out to a total cost of $3.2 trillion. Of course, we’d also eliminate lots of welfare payments, so the net cost would be less than that. But even accounting for that, it would probably require the federal income tax to be doubled or tripled. That’s a pretty tough sell.

#2: It can’t replace everything.

You can—barely—live on $10,000 per year. But that won’t pay for health care. It won’t pay for public schools for our kids. We’ll still have to keep some welfare programs around even with a UBI. On the plus side, as long as these programs are universal, they generally retain the benefits of a UBI: low admin costs and no bad work incentives.

#3: What about children?

This is tricky. Option A is to simply include them like everyone else. But this provides a substantial incentive to have children in order to get their UBI, and that’s not something most voters are likely to accept. Option B is to give children a smaller UBI than adults. But would that be enough to provide for them properly? Nobody wants kids to suffer because their parents are poor. How do you ensure that?

#4: What about the elderly?

Should retirees be folded into the UBI? If so, their pensions would be quite a bit lower than they are now. If not, we’d basically be guaranteeing a higher UBI for old people than for young people. Would that seem fair to most people?

#5: Money is a sadly vulnerable commodity.

It’s an unfortunate but painful truth that poor people are often vulnerable to having cash taken away from them. It can be stolen, of course, but more likely it’s simply confiscated by someone they’re living with. This is obviously a problem with earnings of all kinds, but one advantage of existing welfare programs is that it provides a minimum floor to this. A drunk and abusive husband can’t take away your Section 8 voucher or your food stamps or your Medicaid in order to blow it on beer and smokes.

This is just the briefest outline. And it may be that in the near future we no longer have much choice about this anyway. As robots take away more and more jobs, a UBI may be the only realistic answer to a nation full of robots that can replace low-skill workers at almost no cost. If we get to a point where a substantial number of people flatly don’t have the skills to perform any job for any wage, what are we going to do? The most likely answer is that we’ll end up with a UBI whether we like it or not. And that makes it worth thinking about right now.

See original article: 

Is It Finally Time For a UBI?

Posted in ALPHA, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is It Finally Time For a UBI?

It’s Not Just Blue-Collar Workers Who Voted For Trump Last Night

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

I don’t really know how much to make of this, but Donald Trump’s victory in New York last night was remarkably thorough. Take a look at the exit poll results on the right for evidence.

Yes, Trump did well in his wheelhouse of high school grads. But college grads and postgrads also voted for him by huge margins. In New York, at least, having a PhD (or an MA or a law degree or a medical degree) didn’t do much to help you see through his obvious flimflam.

Perhaps even more remarkably, Trump’s strongest support didn’t come from blue-collar workers with modest incomes. It came from middle and upper-middle-class voters. Whatever their motivations, it didn’t have anything to do with China and Mexico taking away their jobs.

More:  

It’s Not Just Blue-Collar Workers Who Voted For Trump Last Night

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Not Just Blue-Collar Workers Who Voted For Trump Last Night

Another Pension Fund Goes South After the Great Recession

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s the latest big pension fund in trouble:

More than a quarter of a million truckers, retirees and their families could soon see their pension benefits severely cut — even though their pension fund is still years away from running out of money.

….Like many other pension plans, the Central States Pension Fund suffered heavy investment losses during the financial crisis that cut into the pool of money available to pay out benefits. While the stock market has recovered since then, the improvements were not enough to make up for the shortfall….That imbalance left the fund paying out $3.46 in pension benefits for every $1 it received from employers. The shortfall has resulted in the fund paying out $2 billion more in benefits than it receives in employer contributions each year.

One of the big criticisms of 401(k) style retirement plans is that they can lose a bundle when the stock market tanks. And sure enough, that’s exactly what happened during the Great Recession. The value of 401(k) plans fell dramatically, causing a lot of pain for people who were close to retirement.

But don’t let that make you nostalgic for the good old days of defined-benefit pensions. Sure, they promise a steady retirement income, but promises are only as good as the money to back them up. This means that pension funds which lost a lot of money during the Great Recession are in no better shape than 401(k) plans that did the same. There’s no magic here.

What’s more, 401(k) plans have rebounded since the depths of the recession: taking into account both their losses and their subsequent gains during the recovery, the average 401(k) balance has grown more than 10 percent per year between 2007 and 2013. Apparently that’s not the case for the Central States Pension Fund. Perhaps those much-maligned 401(k) plans are a better retirement vehicle than their critics give them credit for?

Read more: 

Another Pension Fund Goes South After the Great Recession

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Another Pension Fund Goes South After the Great Recession

Here’s a Sneak Preview of the Upcoming Republican Health Care Plan

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Seven years after they first promised an alternative health care proposal, Republicans now say they’re close. “Give us a little time, another month or so,” Rep. Fred Upton (R-Mich.) told reporters this week. Steve Benen is unimpressed:

The problem probably isn’t dishonesty. In all likelihood, Republicans would love to have a health care plan of their own — no one likes to appear ridiculous while breaking promises — but haven’t because they don’t know how to craft one.

Not true! They know exactly how to craft one. In fact, I’ve seen a leak of their upcoming plan. Here it is:

Block granting of Medicaid
Tort reform
Interstate purchase of health plans
High-risk pools
Tax breaks for buying individual coverage
Health savings accounts

None of this would have much effect on the health care market, and it would probably fall about 19 million short of covering the 20 million people currently covered by Obamacare. That’s why they don’t want to unveil it. They know what they want, and they know how to craft it, but they still don’t know how to make up a plausible set of lies about how it will do anybody any good. As soon as they figure that part out, they’ll go public the next day.

Original article: 

Here’s a Sneak Preview of the Upcoming Republican Health Care Plan

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s a Sneak Preview of the Upcoming Republican Health Care Plan