Since the Dilly, Dally, Delay & Stall Law Firms are adding their billable hours, the Toyota U.S.A. and Route 44 Toyota posts have been separated here:

Route 44 Toyota Sold Me A Lemon

Monday, August 21, 2017

Trump's Rejection of National Climate Report Would Do More Harm Than Paris Exit

Reader Supported News
21 August 17

This is one of the most painful realities of the current fundraising environment. We can’t say thank you for fear that the donations will stop. It happened again yesterday.
We want to say thank you, our donors love to hear it. Please don’t stop donating every time we express gratitude.
What looked like an encouraging start is now a fundraiser at a dead stop. Please start donating again.
Thank you.
Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News
Sure, I'll make a donation!

Update My Monthly Donation
Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter

If you would prefer to send a check:
Reader Supported News
PO Box 2043
Citrus Hts
CA 95611

Trump's Rejection of National Climate Report Would Do More Harm Than Paris Exit
Gary Yohe, The Conversation
Yohe writes: "A scientific report done every four years has been thrust into the spotlight because its findings directly contradict statements from the president and various cabinet officials."
A flooded building in Fenton, Missouri. (photo: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA)
A flooded building in Fenton, Missouri. (photo: Jocelyn Augustino/FEMA)

 scientific report done every four years has been thrust into the spotlight because its findings directly contradict statements from the president and various cabinet officials.
If the Trump administration chooses to reject the pending national Climate Science Special Report, it would be more damaging than pulling the U.S. out of the Paris agreement. Full stop. This is a bold claim, but as an economist and scientist who was a vice chair of the committee that shepherded the last national climate assessment report to its completion, I can explain why this is the case.
Informing policy with facts
To see why the Climate Science Special Report is so important, first consider some historical context.
In 1990, Congress mandated that government scientists prepare and transmit a report to the president and the Congress every four years that "integrates, evaluates, and interprets" findings of the U.S. Global Change Research Program. It must characterize the "effects of global change on the natural environment, agriculture, energy production and use, land and water resources, transportation, human health and welfare, human social systems and biological diversity." It also calls for scientists to project climate trends decades into the future.
The upcoming Climate Science Special Report, upon which the administration must bestow either its approval or its rejection sometime in the near future, is the first major component of the Fourth National Climate Assessment. Combined with a second section that will analyze climate change's impacts on different regions and sectors of the economy, it must, by law, be submitted in some form to Congress and the public by the end of 2017. The previous assessment was released to the public by President Obama in a Rose Garden ceremony on May 6, 2014.
So, what does the latest Climate Science Special Report say? On the basis of new and stronger science, it extends, confirms and elaborates conclusions on climate risks reported in the third National Climate Assessment nearly four years ago. The forthcoming National Climate Assessment is now more secure in its core findings and includes two new important developments: advances in what is called attribution science and the importance of using this new information to implement effective adaptation.
The draft report shows that scientists can more accurately describe the degree to which we can attribute growing climate change risks to human activity. The net effect is that scientists can more confidently attribute the role global warming has played in events such as floods or heat waves.
The report also reconfirms that it is not too late for Americans to respond to growing climate change risks. This was a major conclusion of the NCA3, but it is worthy of repeating. Put quite simply, it assures Americans that we can work individually and together to reduce our carbon footprint and to adapt to the dangers of climate change, both observed and projected.
State and city action on Paris
So why would rejecting the forthcoming CSSR be more damaging to public health and welfare across the country than withdrawing from the Paris agreement? The reason lies in the crucial difference between the two: the Paris agreement focuses on reducing emissions, while the Climate Science Special Report is designed to help the U.S. better adapt to the effects of climate change even as it underscores the importance of cutting emissions.
We, like many other nations, were "leading from behind" when we helped 196 nations achieve and accept the Paris agreement in 2015. China was already reducing its carbon emissions significantly as a co-benefit to reducing conventional air pollution. States like California and the entire New England region had already implemented cap and trade programs to do the same.
Meanwhile, cities like New York and Los Angeles were similarly committing their own scarce resources to reduce emissions and adopt adaptation plans. Corporations across the country are changing their business plans to reduce their emissions and to protect their bottom-line resilience.
The message of all this decentralized action is clear: The emissions reduction train had, by Nov. 4, 2016 when the Paris agreement came into force, already left the station. Leaving the Paris agreement was a bad idea, but it was not going to call the train back.
By contrast, the NCA4 includes vital information that will help policymakers and society at large to adapt more securely to the effects of a dynamic climate. The previous national climate assessment report did exactly that, providing not only data on how climate change is affecting the U.S. now, broken down by region and industry, but also stronger foundations for designing effective adaptive strategies.
Powerful signal
A New York Times article recently noted that some scientists involved in the climate report are concerned about what the administration will do.
A decision to reject the report would, of course, diminish the credibility of hundreds of government scientists who have worked the climate problem for decades. The CSSR is the product of exactly the "peer-reviewed and objectively reviewed methodology and evaluation" that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has called for.
Trump has already refused to accept high-confidence conclusions from 17 intelligence agenciesacross the federal government, which makes it makes it more difficult to make progress in protecting our next national election from cyberattacks. Similarly, rejecting the high-confidence findings from the 13 federal agencies whose scientists contributed to the Climate Science Special Report would make it much more difficult for Americans to protect themselves from existing and projected climate risks in a number of ways.
  • It would make it easier for Congress to dismiss any proposed legislation that takes climate change risk into account.
  • It would make it easier for shareholders of major corporations to demand that their CEOs save money in the short run by ignoring material climate risk to the longer-view bottom line.
Putting people in harm's way
As such, President Trump's rejection of the 2018 Climate Science Special Report would unnecessarily place American citizens in harm's way in every corner of the country. Studies have shown that hundreds of people and billions of dollars would be lost over the coming years if emissions continue unabated.
I know that his supporters and climate skeptics would call that statement hyperbole, but I believe that it is not. People will die if the president rejects the upcoming Climate Science Special Report because they will not be protected. Nobody can identify exactly who and when, but it is possible to describe many of them with incredible precision.
The dead will be drawn randomly across all 50 states from populations of poor, elderly and/or very young Americans who live close to rivers, streams, oceans or lakes in regions that are already prone to extreme weather events, intense summer heat and newly observed vector-borne diseases. By dismissing the best available climate science, the administration will slow or reverse the country's efforts to adapt to the dangerous effects of climate change, such as these.
Rejection of this report would thereby be an abdication of the president's constitutional responsibility to "provide for the public's defense" and "promote the general welfare" of every American.

Contribute to RSN
Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter
Update My Monthly Donation

Los Angeles jury links talc to ovarian cancer, awarding woman $417 million

Los Angeles jury links talc to ovarian cancer, awarding woman $417 million

August, 21, 2017 – After a four-week trial in the first of hundreds of similar cases filed in California, a Los Angeles jury awarded a $417 million verdict to a California woman, finding a connection between her ovarian cancer and the Johnson & Johnson baby powder she used for decades.
Doctors diagnosed Eva Echeverria with ovarian cancer 10 years ago. According to a videotaped deposition played for the jury, the 63-year-old Echeverria began using the company’s baby powder for feminine hygiene when she was 11 years old, and only stopped in 2016 after watching a news story about a woman with ovarian cancer who had also used the product. Ms. Echeverria testified that had Johnson & Johnson put a warning on the product, she would have stopped using it.
The breakdown of liability in the jury verdict was:
  • Johnson & Johnson – $68 million compensatory damages
  • Johnson & Johnson – $340 million punitive damages
  • Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. – $2 million compensatory damages
  • Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc. – $7 million punitive damages
Total Punitive Damages – $347 million
Total Compensatory Damages – $70 million
The closely watched trial began on July 26, and is part of the consolidated Johnson & Johnson Talcum Powder Cases, case number JCCP4872, in the Superior Court of California for Los Angeles County. Echeverria is represented by Mark P. Robinson Jr., Kevin F. Calcagnie, Scot Wilson and Cynthia Garber of Robinson Calcagnie Inc.; Allen Smith of The Smith Law Firm; Ted MeadowsDavid Dearingand Ryan Beattie of Beasley Allen Law Firm; Helen Zukin from Kiesel Law Firm; and Michelle A. Parfitt of Ashcraft & Gerel LLP.
The next trial involving similar claims against Johnson & Johnson will be presented by Beasley Allen in St. Louis in October 2017.

**MUST READ & SHARE! ****RSN: Matt Taibbi | Why Trump Can't Quit the Alt-Right

Reader Supported News
21 August 17
It's Live on the HomePage Now: 

Sure, I'll make a donation!

FOCUS: Matt Taibbi | Why Trump Can't Quit the Alt-Right 
Donald Trump and Steve Bannon. (photo: Saul Loeb/Getty Images)
Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
Taibbi writes: "In the wake of Charlottesville, Donald Trump clings to the only constituency he has left."

Contribute to RSN
Become a Fan of RSN on Facebook and Twitter
Update My Monthly Donation

The unending carousel

Published on Aug 20, 2017
From HBO's Last Week Tonight with John Oliver.
All rights belong to HBO. Check out the official channel here:

CounterCurrents: From Oil To Climate Genocide

Dear Friend,

Sally Dugman's article "Where Should Be Limits In Medical Intervention?" is perhaps the most difficult article I had to post. I posted it because it raises some fundamental questions. You can agree or disagree. 

Dr Gideon Polya raises the important issue of 10 billion deaths in a near-terminal Climate Genocide from burning fossil fuels.

Hadiya, a Hindu girl who became muslim and then married a muslim groom has become a national issue now. The High Court of Kerala annulled the marriage alleging forced conversion. The supreme court of India has orderd a probe into the terrorism angle into the marriage. Syed Ali Mujtaba raises the question, is marriage really an act of terrorism?

K.P Sasi's cartoon looks at corporatism, patenting and the commons. 

I hate to say it, but I have to say it to save CC, our fund raising is going slow. Please lend a helping hand to keep CC survive

In Solidarity

Binu Mathew

Where Should Be Limits In Medical Intervention?
by Sally Dugman 

Where should be limits in medical intervention? When is enough simply enough? Who’s to pay for any excesses? … It’s an ethical kind as well as other sorts of dilemmas, such as the legal sorts or the kinds related to the emotional trauma involved.

Israeli-Palestinian & Middle East Conflict – From Oil To Climate Genocide
by Dr Gideon Polya 

The 100 year Middle East conflict including the  genocidal Zionist colonization of Palestine has been about Anglo-American desire for hegemony and control of oil. However the horrendous deaths from the now global US War on Muslims may be dwarfed by a predicted 10 billion deaths in a near-terminal Climate Genocide from burning fossil fuels. Boycotts, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) against Apartheid Israel,  its supporters, US Alliance war criminals  and terracidal climate criminals are our last hope to stop this War on Humanity.

Note To Colleagues At My New School Focusing On The Myth Of American Innocence
by Richard Oxman 

Racism rules the headlines these days. [Pause.] One cannot put an end to racism if one is engaged in bombing, sanctioning, starving or immiserating people of color overseas routinely. Oh yes, the U.S. Military is, arguably, also the greatest single polluter on the planet.

There’s Blood On Your Hands, Mr Trump!
by Taj Hashmi 

Although I had no illusions about Trump being peace loving, just a harmless idiot, and an apolitical demagogue having no political agendas – as Obama misread him – I write this to point out that not Kim Jong-un but Donald Trump is posing the biggest security threat to the world, and to his own country. 

A Case For An Incompetent President
by Dr Arshad M Khan 

There it is then, a vote for an incompetent president … and an ineffective one.  Can you imagine a sane general going to war for Trump?

How Financial Illiteracy Is Duping People Of Millions Of Precious Savings
by Moin Qazi 

The issue is lot more nuanced than what we are seeing today. Nuances change from culture to culture and consumer segment to consumer segment. The consumers will come into the formal financial sector and embrace the new opportunities believing that if they change their behavior and exert the effort to get into the new world then certain specific pains will disappear. We have thus to address real pains, not just offer benefits.

Hadiya Case: A Potpourri of Conversion, Marriage And Security Case
by Syed Ali Mujtaba 

The case related to annulment of interreligious marriage between a Muslim groom and Hindu turned Muslim bride by the Kerala High Court has caught the imagination of the entire nation. This national interest in this case is because it has reached the Supreme Court where some high profile lawyers of the country are arguing for and against, bringing out many layers of this high profile matrimonial dispute.

India Now! Cartoon By K.P Sasi

Cartoon By K.P Sasi

Anti-racism protesters totally eclipsed Boston's right-wing Free Speech rally

Anti-racism protesters totally eclipsed Boston's right-wing Free Speech rally

Stephanie Keith via Twitter/Newsweek

The Boston Free Speech rally, which many feared would draw a violent crowd of white supremacists Saturday, was instead overshadowed by thousands of counter-protesters denouncing bigotry and racism.
The dueling demonstrations on Boston Common showed a shocking disparity in size. As Vox’s Alex Ward reported from the scene, the Free Speech rally, scheduled to begin at noon, was only permitted for 100 participants. The press was not allowed within a policed perimeter of the Free Speech rally, gathered in by the Parkman Bandstand — a small gazebo in Boston’s public park.
Meanwhile, counter-demonstrators — which, as Ward reported, were conservatively estimated to outnumber the Free Speech rally-goers 15 to one — filled the grounds outside a security perimeter, drowning out the speeches at the Free Speech rally.
More anti-racism protesters, led by the Black Lives Matter chapter, marched through Boston Saturday from the Reggie Lewis Track and Athletic Center to join the counter demonstration at Boston Common. Police are estimating roughly 15,000 people in the march, according to ABC News.

Aerial view shows large crowd of counter-demonstrators marching through Boston ahead of planned "free speech" rally. 
The two protests come in the aftermath of the events in Charlottesville, Virginia, last week, including when a Nazi-sympathizer drove his car into a crowd of anti-racism counter-demonstrators, protesting a white supremacist rally, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others.
The events in Charlottesville sparked national outrage after President Donald Trump equivocated his condemnation of white supremacists. Trump waited two days to denounce the hate groups by name, and went on the next day to give what was largely received as a defense of the alt-right — a fringe conservative movement that espouses white nationalist politics.
After Charlottesville, reports of similar white supremacist rallies planned for Saturday dissipated. Instead, several pre-planned Free Speech rallies — which have caused controversy for being in defense of hate speech — continued to go on as scheduled.
But on Saturday, it was clear those voices were outnumbered, and outshouted.