text:
Have £1,000 to invest? FTSE 100-member BAE's share price could boost your retirement savings
Peter Stephens | Wednesday, 19th September, 2018 | More on: BA SEE
The performance of the FTSE 100 has been relatively disappointing in 2018. It's trading at a similar level to which it started the year. For long-term investors though, this could present a buying opportunity, with UK share prices seemingly offering good value for money at the present time.
One stock which could perform well in the long run is defence company BAE (LSE: BA). It appears to offer a mix of value for money and growth potential. As such, it could be worth buying alongside a smaller stock which reported positive results on Wednesday.
Improving outlook
The company in question is advanced computer vision technology specialist Seeing Machines (LSE: SEE). It reported a rise in revenue in its financial year of 117%, with its top line reaching A$30.7m. Its Fleet division's revenue increased by 89%, while Automotive revenue increased five-fold. It was able to secure production awards in the year to 30 June, with two premium German automotive original equipment manufacturers (OEM), as well as one global US-based OEM for multiple vehicle models in the 2019 to 2022 timeframe.
The company is seeking to transform the business model of its Fleet division in order to improve the deployment of capital and resources across the group. It is also seeing increasing demand from the global automotive sector for its driver monitoring system (DMS) technology.
As such, Seeing Machines could enjoy a tailwind over the medium term. DMS technology looks set to play a greater role in the transport sector, with autonomous driving and safety likely to be key growth areas in future years. While the company may be relatively risky and volatile, its long-term investment prospects appear to be improving.
The outlook for BAE and the wider defence sector has improved significantly in the last few years. Higher spending on the military by the US and an end to austerity across much of the developed world means that the financial prospects for defence companies across the globe could be boosted. This may lead to rising bottom lines and higher valuations.
With a price-to-earnings (P/E) ratio of around 16, BAE doesn't appear to be excessively priced at the present time. The company is forecast to post a rise in earnings of around 9% in the next financial year, and this could help to stimulate investor demand for its shares. And with it yielding 3.7% from a dividend that is covered 1.9 times by profit, its total return potential seems to be high.
BAE is focused on driving through efficiency gains over the medium term. It is also seeking to advance and further leverage its technology in international markets, as well as adjacent markets. Its position as a major supplier across a number of segments means that it may be well-placed to identify new growth opportunities. Therefore, it could benefit significantly from global GDP growth and the return to higher military spending which seems likely to take place over the coming years.
Want To Retire Early?
Do you want to retire early and give up the rat race to enjoy the rest of your life? Of course you do, and to help you accomplish this goal, the Motley Fool has put together this free report titled "The Foolish Guide To Financial Independence", which is packed full of wealth-creating tips as well as ideas for your money.
The report is entirely free and available for download today, so if you're interested in exiting the rat race and achieving financial independence, click here to download the report. What have you got to lose?
Peter Stephens owns shares of BAE Systems. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors.


Leaders from more than 60 nations attended the one-day conference in London. In his speech at the start of the summit, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pitched a plan for integrating Taliban fighters into mainstream Afghan society.
Update: 1:37 p.m. ET: At the conclusion of the one-day meeting, participants in the talks issued a communique expressing their approval of the plan that Afghan President Hamid Karzai introduced earlier in the day. Major international donors were asked to pledge money for the effort, and U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced after the meeting that Japan has offered $50 million toward the plan. She said the U.S. military in Afghanistan also had funds at its disposal to use to support the program.
London, England - Afghan President Hamid Karzai pitched a plan for integrating Taliban fighters into mainstream Afghan society Thursday, as world powers gathered to find ways to strengthen the Afghan government in the face of a persistent Taliban and al Qaeda insurgency.
"We must reach out to all our countrymen, especially our disenchanted brothers who are not part of al Qaeda or other terrorist networks," Karzai told the participants at the London Conference on Afghanistan - a meeting of more than 60 countries and organizations looking for ways to steer the country away from the grasp of militants.
A central focus of the summit is a $500 million pay-for-peace proposal to bring Taliban fighters into the civilian fold if they promise to renounce violence. The money would create jobs and housing in an effort to moderate the Taliban fighters, helping them return to civilian life. Major international donors are expected to pledge money for the effort.
Karzai also said he would establish a national council for peace reconciliation and integration, followed by a "peace jirga" - a traditional gathering of Afghan tribal leaders - and said he hoped Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah would play a "prominent role."
Related: Your view: Negotiating with the Taliban?
Update 8:36 a.m. ET: The NATO-led command expressed regret for the killing of a religious leader by a military convoy Thursday. "Despite all the measures that we put in place to ensure the safety of the Afghan people, regrettable incidents such as this one can occur. On behalf of ISAF I express my sincere regrets for this loss of life and convey my deepest condolences to his family," said ISAF spokesman Brig Gen. Eric Tremblay, quoted in an ISAF news release.
Kabul, Afghanistan - Angry demonstrations took place Thursday outside a U.S. military base on the outskirts of Kabul after NATO-led forces fatally shot an Afghan religious leader. Mullah Mohmmad Younas, 36, of Paktia Kowt Mosque in Ud-Khil district, was sitting in a parked car with his two young sons, waiting for a convoy belonging to the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force to pass, witnesses said.
Kabul, Afghanistan - The Afghan government is blaming Pakistani intelligence agents and al Qaeda for burned Qurans found in Helmand Province last week, a spokesman for the provincial government said.
As leading power-brokers meet in London to debate the future of war-torn Afghanistan, CNN's Atia Abawi asks whether it is possible to negotiate with the Taliban, who just days ago displayed their military might with an attack on Kabul.
"And in Afghanistan, we're increasing our troops and training Afghan security forces so they can begin to take the lead in July of 2011 and our troops can begin to come home. We will reward good governance, work to reduce corruption, and support the rights of all Afghans, men and women alike. We're joined by allies and partners who have increased their own commitment and who'll come together tomorrow in London to reaffirm our common purpose. There will be difficult days ahead, but I am absolutely confident we will succeed."


"…Best teachers in omaha. Tons of classes available, awesome workshops, kids yoga, and great facilities. I bring all my peeps to One Tree Yoga and the…"
"…Excellent variety of classes for beginners throught advanced practitioners. Amazing instructors. Great, fun location. Many classes offered here are…"
"…classically trained teachers who compassionately teach in a spacious studio…"
"…I am a powerful woman & was first introduced to Adena along with a group of other powerful women at the same kind of group event so misleadingly dispa…"


text:
Nahuel Lautaro Bustos (born 4 July 1998) is an Argentine professional footballer who plays as a forward for Argentinian club Talleres, on loan from Premier League club Manchester City.

Club career

Early career
Born in Córdoba, Bustos started playing for hometown side CA Huracán at the age of five. He subsequently moved to Argentino Peñarol, and on 24 February 2013, at the age of just 14 years, seven months and 20 days, he made his senior debut for the latter side by coming on as a substitute and scoring the fifth goal in a 7–0 Torneo Argentino C routing of CA Racing de Valle Hermoso.

Talleres
On 5 March 2014, Argentino Peñarol's president Ariel Allende announced that Bustos was sold to a businessman group for a fee of 40,000 pesos, and was assigned to Talleres. On 12 June of the following year, he signed his first professional contract with the club.

After appearing as an unused substitute in April 2016 for Primera B Nacional fixtures against Almagro, Gimnasia y Esgrima and Atlético Paraná, Bustos made his senior debut on 18 June, replacing Nazareno Solís late into a 1–1 away draw against Chacarita Juniors, as his side was already promoted. He made his Primera División debut on 23 April 2017, replacing Jony in a 1–0 home win against Godoy Cruz.

Bustos was part of the club's squad for the 2018 U-20 Copa Libertadores in Uruguay, a competition in which Bustos scored four goals in three matches, including a hat-trick against Atlético Venezuela. He only became a regular first team starter in September of that year, under manager Juan Pablo Vojvoda.

Bustos scored his first professional goal on 22 September 2018, netting the opener in a 1–1 home draw against Vélez Sarsfield. On 7 October, he scored a brace in a 3–0 home defeat of rivals Belgrano, taking his tally up to four goals in four matches. In 2019–20, Bustos scored ten goals in twenty-three appearances in all competitions before the season's curtailment due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Pachuca loan
On 28 December 2018, Talleres announced that Bustos had joined Liga MX side Pachuca on loan; signing for twelve months. He netted his first goal on 8 January in a Copa MX victory away to Atlante. Bustos returned to Talleres on 20 July 2019, having played a total of eight times for Mexican club.

Manchester City
On 5 October 2020, Talleres reached an agreement with the City Football Group for the transfer of Bustos.

Girona loan
Bustos subsequently joined Girona FC in the Segunda División for the 2020–2021 season. He debuted in a 1–0 win over Real Oviedo on 18 October, before scoring his first two goals for the club in the Copa del Rey against Tercera División outfit Gimnástica Segoviana on 17 December.

São Paulo loan
On 5 August 2022, Bustos joined Série A club São Paulo on loan until June 2023, with an extra optional year.

International career
Bustos was called up to train with the Argentina U20 team ahead of the 2017 FIFA U-20 World Cup in South Korea, but was cut from the final squad.

Career statistics
.

Honours
Argentino Peñarol
Torneo del Interior: 2013
Talleres
Primera B Nacional: 2016

References

External links

1998 births
Living people
Footballers from Córdoba, Argentina
Argentine footballers
Association football forwards
Argentine expatriate footballers
Expatriate footballers in Mexico
Expatriate footballers in Spain
Expatriate footballers in Brazil
Expatriate footballers in England
Argentine expatriate sportspeople in Mexico
Argentine expatriate sportspeople in Spain
Argentine expatriate sportspeople in Brazil
Argentine expatriate sportspeople in England
Argentine Primera División players
Primera Nacional players
Liga MX players
Segunda División players
Campeonato Brasileiro Série A players
Talleres de Córdoba footballers
C.F. Pachuca players
Girona FC players
São Paulo FC players
Manchester City F.C. players

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


Back in November, an inquisitive ichneumon wasp came by while I was stacking wood.
 Now, at the time, I assumed she was hunting for something to parasitize. But, the other day we encountered an identical Ichneumon wasp that was hibernating. Then I realized the woodpile-exploring wasp could have been searching for a place to spend the long, cold winter. In hind sight, I suspect I disturbed her chosen hibernation site, or, the moist wood I was stacking may have been of interest to her in her search of a suitable hibernaculum.
We were out on a mountain top exploring a rock city and admiring the cross-bedded sandstone cliffs.
In some places this sandstone has a prolific growth of moss and lichens.
My son was fascinated by the overhanging moss and lichens. Out of curiosity, he lifted some moss. There, under his first handful of very wet moss, he found these two hibernating ichneumon wasps. Two different species at that!
The ichneumon wasp in the foreground is identical to the one that came to visit me on the woodpile.
The other hibernating wasp (pictured below) is perhaps an Ichneumon mendax.
Here is a photo of that small wasp crawling on my hand. It's body measures about three-eights of an inch long.
These female ichneumon wasps will spend the winter in a dormant state. The males have already died. After winter is past and hibernation is over, the wasps will go about the business of hunting and parasitizing a host (probably moth or butterfly pupae). That's about their life story. Basically, most of their short life the female ichneumons spend under a clump of moss awaiting spring.
We found the ichneumon wasp's hibernating site just to the right of the "cave" pictured below.
Holding out for the winter under the wet moss on the rocks beside the "cave" seems nightmarish to me. Probably because I can't hibernate. Additionally, one night in that cave on the windy mountaintop with knee deep snow on the ground on a cold January night was enough for me! Brrrr....and that was almost 20 years ago. I don't envy those wasps one bit...and they are planning on spending the whole winter there in that damp moss!


Washing Machine Buying Guide: Types of Washers for .
A washing machine is one of the most used appliances in a home. It can also make the biggest difference in energy bills in a home. Before purchasing a washer it's important that you consider the many new and energy-efficient features washers have to offer.
Whirlpool Washing Machines - ConsumerAffairs: .
I have purchased a Whirlpool Washing Machine Mode W/P WM ROY 6212SD(31089) Sl.No.INF 153400517) GRAY/CHR TN 6.5 on 05.12.2015 with two years warranty on complete washing machine. The warranty period over on 04.12.2017. Exactly after over 3 months the machine start giving noise and we had been in .
Here is a list of the Best Washing Machine Repairs' services in Gold Coast, QLD as rated by other customers. Oneflare provides you with up to 3 FREE quotes for finding your Best Washing Machine Repairs' services in Gold Coast! Australia's favourite online marketplace that connects customers with businesses. Get the job from to-do to done .
Best Washing Machine with Agitator Reviews . Are you moving into a new house or simply got tired of your old washing machine and look to replace it with something new? No matter the reason, finding a good washing machine could prove a difficult task, especially if you don't have enough time to go through stores and decide which one will best .
You don't have to pay four figures to get your clothes clean. Here are the best washers for $800 or less based on Consumer Reports' tough tests.
Miele W3038 Washing Machine Review: Is It Worth the .
I can't believe I have only now gotten around to writing this review of my Miele W3038 washing machine. Just to give you some background, laundry has always been my favorite chore, but when I moved in with my now husband our condo did not have a washer. It didn't even have space for a washer .
Front-load washing machines are considered to be the best-performing washing machines available, and they're the most water- and energy-efficient, too. Their horizontal tubs tumble clothes into and out of the water, making it possible to wash a full load with relatively little water and their higher spin speeds wring out more water, so laundry .
Best washing machine 2018: 9 laundry wranglers from .
Which washing machine should I buy? - India Study .
Which washing machine should I buy? Hai friends, . You can buy the best washing machine for your home with the 6th sense cooling system,fully automatic washing machines by Whirlpool India. For semi automatic machines by Samsung India is best option. #93777. 24 Aug 2012 08:34. Venkiteswaran. Points: 5 (Rs 5) Aswin, You are lucky to have .
Washing Machine Buying Guide - Lowe's Home .
To get closer to identifying the best washing machine for your home, consider the following: 1. . A pedestal washer is a smaller washer that fits underneath your main washing machine, allowing you to do two loads of laundry at the same time. One thing to consider is that pedestal washers raise the main washer off the floor by 12-16 .
Find great deals on eBay for Washing Machine Agitator in Parts & Accessories. Shop with confidence.
How to buy a washing machine. Washer Reviews Best Washers Buying Guide. By my calculation, there are about 150 different washing machine models sold in the US today. That includes everything from standard front- and top-loaders to compact, unitized, all-in-one, and other miscellaneous one-off styles. Within that selection of washers, about a .
Washing machines have big performance differences in water efficiency, noise, and capacity. View our ratings and reviews and browse our buying guide to find the best top-load, front-load, or HE (high-efficiency) washing machine for your family.
Best prices for washing machines Including Delivery | .
Compare washing machine prices across top retailers in Australia and find the best deal for you on getprice.au. We provide a impartial price comparison catalogue across all your favourite products.
5 Tips for Cleaning Your Top-Load Washing Machine. Home / Home / Articles; by William Hampton . You use your bath towels when you are at your cleanest. So it stands to reason that they should never get dirty, right? Yet that stiffness and faint smell they develop after a few weeks seem to tell a different story. Same thing with top-load washing machines.


text:
Laura Paskus Essay June 9, 2003 From the print edition
The author in the high country of northern Montana
HOLLIS LAWRENCE
Laura Paskus
It's been four years since I touched human bone, since I had silt and clay stuck beneath my fingernails and inside the cracked skin of my knuckles — silt and clay that had cradled bones for hundreds of years.
I used to work as a contract archaeologist, scanning the landscape for petroglyphs and fire rings, sandstone ruins and flaked stone scatters. It sounds romantic, but I was really a scout for developers: Under federal law, before anyone can build a road, a dam, a pipeline or an airport, archaeologists must survey for, and then excavate, sites that might be destroyed.
I spent five years brushing sand off black-on-white painted pottery, carefully lifting grinding stones and sampling the soil beneath for pollen. I stood on the ancient plastered floors of pithouses — floors my feet were the first to touch since the homes were abandoned, and their roofs had collapsed. I'd pull off my boots and socks, and stand on the plaster, tracing the cracks with my fingers. Then we'd refill the structures with dirt, and make way for construction crews.
After a few years, I began to realize that I was helping to destroy all the things I loved about the Southwest — the safe old bones hiding in canyons, the stories I couldn't understand because they weren't my own, the wide open spaces. I was being paid to pull all those things to pieces.
I began to resent the construction workers who hurried us. I became angry at bosses who urged us to work more quickly and less carefully than we should. I didn't want to move burial grounds to pave the way for Wal-Mart.
Overwhelmed by the contradictions between my love and my livelihood, I headed to Spain. I thought it might look and feel like the Southwest, but lack the cultural baggage of victory and defeat, Indians and archaeologists, developers and dam builders.
Beyond that, the 2000 presidential election had sapped my faith in democracy. I was shocked that the events of September 11, 2001, had ended discussion of the scandal, and had beaten all but the most die-hard critics of George W. Bush into submissive admiration for his War on Terror. In short, I wanted out.
In Spain, my fiancé and I hung around the southern coast and hiked Las Alpujaras. The people were beautiful, the food rich and smoky, the history romantic, but there was no wide emptiness, no sense of feeling small in the landscape.
We headed east to work on a farm near Serra da Estrela, Portugal's highest mountain range. Glyn and Anneke, the owners of the farm, had a second property in the mountains, and we'd head up there once a week to clear the land of its thickets of brambles. "Slash and burn," Glyn would shout each time we hiked toward the slate-stone farmhouse. A former heavy-machinery operator from South London, Glyn was giddy in the mountains, happiest when he was wielding a chain saw and stoking a bonfire. When we had finally cleared enough brush to look across the valley, Glyn took a deep breath. This was wilderness to him, and he loved it.
But when I looked across the valley, I saw abandoned farms, and wondered why everyone had left. I saw endless eucalyptus and eroding hill slopes where the trees had been clear-cut. A lack of environmental regulation had taken its toll on the land, and hunters had taken care of every last deer, squirrel, wild boar — even many of the sparrows in the area.
At that moment, I felt the closest thing I'd ever felt to patriotism. The leaders and citizens of my nation had done something very good and very right — it was evident from the Mission Mountains Wilderness in Montana, where I'm pretty sure I once saw God, to the thousands of acres of Southwestern wilderness I'd trekked across in the previous few years.
Lying in a hotel in a Portuguese city a couple of months later, I pulled Ed Abbey's Confessions of a Barbarian from the bottom of my pack. My engagement had crumbled, as my faith in my country had before it, and the book, a gift from the now ex-fiancé, had sat neglected at the bottom of my pack.
A few days earlier, I'd read how Americans were supporting restrictions on civil liberties in the name of the War on Terror, and I was dreading going home. Abbey's journals begin in Europe, and I found some solace in the words of another curmudgeonly ex-pat: "Those pitiful weak egos of those who rejoice in our government's little triumphs, sink with each well-earned defeat," he wrote in 1975. "That is, all their pride is invested in the nation-state: they have, it seems, no pride in themselves apart from 'America.' "
Then, Abbey coaxed me home. He marched me through New Mexico's deserts and mountains, and reminded me of my own pride in America: Pride in our wilderness areas, in environmental laws that make our rivers and communities cleaner than they were 50 years ago, in laws that protect rare species and migratory birds, in a sense of democracy that allows citizens an active voice in their communities.
Now that I've come back, I've switched careers, and I no longer feel like I'm dismantling the West. But my anger hasn't disappeared: The Bush administration is "streamlining" all the environmental laws I had bragged about while in Europe. I still think like an archaeologist, and I can't help but wonder if future generations, excavating our oil fields and subdivisions, will wonder why we destroyed so much of our habitat.
Twice a day, the dog and I hit the mining roads and game trails that wind around my cabin. On this Sunday afternoon, we dash outside between rainstorms. I eye the dark clouds to the west, and promise myself that we'll stick close and stay low. But I hit my stride and keep going higher, until we're atop a piñon-and juniper-covered ridge. We turn around just as the lightning begins flashing, and scramble toward home. I'm slipping in the mud, sliding down the ridge, a mess of mud and scratched limbs. The dog is darting ahead, and then back, herding me like the good cattle dog he is.
There's a metallic roll of thunder, and I step up the pace. We make it home, hearts pounding, safe, out of breath. Just as we reach the porch, it starts to pour and hail, and thunder shakes the cabin, barely waiting for the lightning to flash.
I turn and look down the valley. It's sunny there, and I wonder, for a brief moment in between crashes of thunder, why I was running.
Laura Paskus is an assistant editor for High Country News.
Essays for thought
Tourist tales from the New West
A 'nature girl' remembers a dying lumber town
More from Communities

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Old School Friday: Practice?
by Lang Whitaker August 18, 2006
by Lang Whitaker
Four years and about seven coaches ago, the Sixers and Allen Iverson were at a turning point. One year prior, they'd been to the 2001 NBA Finals, where they proved a spirited opponent for Shaq and the Lakers. After months spent battling and butting heads, Iverson and coach Larry Brown appeared to have found some sort of common ground, and the Sixers and Iverson finally found a style of play that fit their personnel.
But when the 2001-02 season began, Iverson and several other Sixers came in injured, effectively keeping the Sixers from ever regaining their place atop the Atlantic Division. They started the season 0-5, came back and fought valiantly all season, but they finished fourth in the Atlantic Division and limped into the playoffs, where they were eliminated in one round by Boston.
Meanwhile, it was not the best of times for Iverson. Due to various injuries (including a broken hand), he was able to play in only 60 regular season games. And somewhere during all of that, Iverson found another tipping point between him and his coach: Practice, namely that Iverson was hurt and felt he couldn't, while Brown didn't care how The Answer felt, he just wanted him out there on the floor.
So, after the Sixers were elimnated by the Celtics, Brown went public, telling the media: "My problems with Allen have been the same for six years. I love him, his competitiveness. The issues are things he has control over, and he'll have a problem with me if he doesn't take care of it. He has to be at practice. He has to set an example. He knows that if he's willing to do that, he'll be a Sixer for life."
A few days later, Iverson took to the podium at the Sixers practice facility and fired back, and that raw honesty and emotion Iverson is now famous for were never more brilliantly on display.
Click below to listen…
[audio:http://slamonline.com/online/wp-content/uploads/2006/08/iverson_practice.mp3]


text:
Revised distribution and plant communities of Orobanche alsatica and notes on the Orobanchaceae series Alsaticae in Poland
Renata Piwowarczyk
Biodiv. Res. Conserv. 2012;(26):39–51
Orobanche alsatica
series Alsaticae
Calypogeia
phytocoenoses
The paper presents the current distribution of Orobanche alsatica in Poland, based on a critical revision of herbarium and literature data and on my field studies conducted in 2006-2011. The recorded localities are mainly in Polish Uplands: the Lublin Upland (Wyżyna Lubelska), Roztocze, and Polesie, less frequently in the Małopolska Upland (Wyżyna Małopolska) and Silesia-Kraków Upland (Wyżyna Śląsko-Krakowska). Distribution maps of O. alsatica and other species of the series Alsaticae (O. bartlingii and O. mayeri) in Poland are included. Their taxonomy, biology, ecology, and habitat preferences are also discussed.
Seed morphology and anatomy of Hypericum majus (A. Gray) Britton
A report on diversity and distribution of macrofungi in the Garhwal Himalaya, Uttarakhand, India
Lectotypification of Impatiens acuminata Benth. ex Hook.f. & Thomson and notes on its geographical distribution
The distribution of Salvinia natans (L.) All. in the Odra and the Oława River valleys in Wrocław area (Poland)
Thematic structure of research on crop weeds in Poland


text:
15825 Capecchi è un asteroide della fascia principale. Scoperto nel 1994, presenta un'orbita caratterizzata da un semiasse maggiore pari a  e da un'eccentricità di 0,0884597, inclinata di 2,72351° rispetto all'eclittica.

Collegamenti esterni

Capecchi
Corpi celesti scoperti nel 1994


Solve your wear problems with help from Agassiz Fabrication LLC. Using UHMW and other plastic materials, we manufacture cost-effective wear parts for agricultural and other equipment. Contact us today in Kindred, North Dakota to request a quote. We offer our product to both retailers and direct buyers nationwide.
In addition to manufacturing our own products, we provide custom CNC fabrication of wear parts for other companies.
UHMW has become the product of choice when it comes to solving wear. It has become popular because compared to grease, it doesn't attract dirt. UHMW products have been used on semi-fifth wheel plates for decades. As the industry changes, equipment have become high-tech as well. Using our wear pads can help you save on your equipment and draw bar.
Our UHMW wear pads relieve machine stress, pounding, and chatter. Choose from our selection of pads for cat 2, 3, 4 and 5 draw bars, depending on your needs. If you need other sizes, we can have them specially made for your application. In most cases you should use a 1/2" pad. If you have a heavy load, stacking is advised. Be sure you have room for two pads. Equipment with upward pressure, add pad to inside top of draw bar.
Correct chain alignment and wear problems on your John Deere 7100, 7300, 1710, or similar planters using our AGJD7100MOD Kit. This kit will guide the chain with a polyethylene wear slide, creating the necessary clearance between the chain and tire. This eliminates gouging on the tire and swing arm. It also helps keep the chain on when planting corn on corn and in mud. There's no need to drill new holes as it fits existing holes.


In 1992, Bruce Springsteen released his album, Human Touch. The big hit on the album was a track titled, 57 Channels (And Nothin' On). There are a few of us here old enough to recall, not just Bruce Springsteen, the song and buying albums but also the days when the idea of 57 television channels was intoxicating. Who cared if there was "nothing on", there were 57 different channels of nothing – how intoxicating! Who were we anyway, to presume that entertainment should be unique to our interests? We should just be grateful that the service providers allowed us to pay for what they thought we should watch.
Over-the-top television is the vanguard of change. Empowering the viewer, essentially allowing them to program their own viewing content – on their schedule – wherever they are. OTT refers to content you can view via the Internet – YouTube, iTunes or Netflix for example. By using a broadband connection, viewers are able to bypass or "go over the top" of providers of linear broadcast television. No longer are you only able to watch your favourite frothy soap at 7pm on a Tuesday, you can watch it whenever you want and wherever you want.
This year's TV Connect event has over 260 speakers focusing on the future of television in the digital age and over-the-top-television is a major talking point. Opening the conference as a day one keynote presentation entitled, "OTT & The New Pay Environment", over-the-top-television is one the recurring themes of the conference, with subjects ranging from, "Driving Forward with the Digital Home Hub" to "Monetising the Social TV Revolution".
What began as a computer-based phenomenon has morphed into complete paradigm shift in how we relate with the television. The introduction of set-top boxes like Roku, Boxee and Apple TV allow your TV to operate as an extension of your computer. A set-top box, Boxee, for example, allows the viewer to access web based content: Netflix, MUBI or Grooveshark, perhaps, by simply clicking an icon. The beauty of this shift is that it makes entertainment and information dynamic. It adapts to you, not you to it. Suddenly you are customising the brain of your television, marrying it with all your other smart devices and treating it more as another screen and less as a static, old world and limited entertainment dinosaur.
Traditional broadcasters can benefit from the global reach for audience OTT offers. Sales on YouTube and iTunes can amount to up to 50% of a program's production budget. For shows like Canada's, Little Mosque on the Prairie, available on Hulu in the U.S., over-the-top television allows them to access an international marketplace with significantly greater ease than in the past.
Over-the-top-television has monetised the revolution and the days of linear broadcast television controlling content are be behind us. Granted, linear networks will always be the backbone but the muscles will be over-the-top-television, allowing entertainment and information to reach more people, in more locations with greater ease. The viewer will control when, where, how and, most importantly, what to watch.
So, Mr. Springsteen, it isn't 1992 anymore. If you can't find something to watch, you've got to empower yourself and explore over-the-top-television.
MPP Global will be at the TV Connect event at Olympia, London on March 19-21.


text:
The Global Health Nexus on Climate Change and Pollution
Dr. Philip J. Landrigan
Dean for Global Health, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
Presider
Thomas J. Bollyky
Senior Fellow for Global Health, Economics, and Development, Council on Foreign Relations
Global Health Program
Pollution kills nine million people each year and sickens many more, mostly in poorer nations. The global health effects of climate change are less well quantified, but also increasing with lower-income countries again bearing the brunt of greater food insecurity, increased rates of chronic respiratory illnesses, and shifts in malarial zones. CFR's Global Health, Economics, and Development Roundtable Series held a discussion on the global health nexus between climate change and pollution and how a more coherent approach to these issues can advance progress at a time when some policymakers, especially in the United States, are unmoved by the environmental, health, and economic consequences expected in the coming decades.
The featured speaker for this discussion was Dr. Philip J. Landrigan, dean for global health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai and recent co-chair of the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health.
BOLLYKY: We're going to get started.
It's fitting that we are holding this event today. New York City is under a heat advisory, and the temperature is supposed to soar to a record high on this date. So thank you all for trudging through all that to get here.
We're here to talk about the global health nexus between climate and pollution. The global health consequences of pollution and climate are significant. Pollution kills nine million people each year, sometimes many more, mostly in poor countries. The health effects of climate change are less well quantified, but still estimated to be quite serious and disproportionately affect lower-income nations with extreme heat events, violent storms, dust, floods, fires, shifts in vector-borne illnesses, water scarcity, and the like.
Pollution and climate arise from many of the same sources, but their health consequences, until recently, were generally considered separately. A more coherent approach to these issues through global health offers multiple benefits. First, it is simply avoiding the missteps of the past—policies that may address air pollution in the past might do nothing or worsen greenhouse emissions or vice versa. Second, focusing on the visible, immediate impacts of pollutants and climate change might offer opportunities when there is some reluctance among policymakers, particularly in the United States, to act based on the more distant consequences of environmental and climate change.
So we're going to have a great discussion on this today. We will review the global health nexus between pollution and climate change, why these challenges should be considered together, and the opportunities for doing so even in the current difficult political environment.
We also have the ideal speaker for this discussion. Phil Landrigan is the dean of Global Health at the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, and recently the co-chair of the Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health. There are a lot of Lancet commissions these days, but this one was truly a groundbreaking and yielded a terrific report. For the few of you that haven't read it, I really do recommend it.
Phil has a very long, distinguished biography. It's in your program so you can read it, but just to mention a few highlights. Phil guided the Environmental Protection Agency in establishing the Office of Children's Health Protection. He directed the medical and epidemiological follow-up on twenty thousand 9/11 rescue workers. He will be launching soon the Global Pollution Observatory at Boston College and at the Harvard School of Public Health. So again, we are thrilled to have him here.
Today's event will be on the record and for attribution. Anything you say may be quoted and the speaker may be identified. Basically that means anything you might say today you should expect to be potentially quoted in your obituary. (Laughter.)
So, with that ominous preamble, let me turn it over to Phil. He is going to speak for ten to fifteen minutes, then I'll ask him a few questions to get us going. After that I will turn it over to the audience and call on you in the order I see your placards, and we'll take it from there. We'll end exactly on time—at 1:30.
LANDRIGAN: Well, thank you, Tom. Thanks to all of you for being here on this hot, hot day. I walked up from 54th Street; I can attest that it's hot.
So let me tell you about the work of our global commission on pollution and the environment. I'll just take ten or twelve minutes to sketch the highlights and hopefully set the stage for the conversation that follows.
So the commission was the work of two years. My colleague, Richard Fuller, and I—Richard chairs and NGO based here in New York called Pure Earth, which has been focused on pollution in developing countries for a long time. Richard and I started this thing in July of 2015. We had 52 members of the commission, and we worked for two years. We had a couple of full meetings of the whole commission.
The commission had several tasks. The first was to document the burden of disease and death around the world caused by pollution in all its forms, and we defined pollution here as any material put into the environment by human activity that causes harm to people or damage to the environment. So it's not volcanic eruptions, it's not sandstorms. But it is stuff put into the environment as the consequence of human activity.
And the specific categories of pollution that we lumped together under that rubric were what I call the two traditional forms of pollution, which are household air pollution from cookstoves and contaminated drinking water, and then the more—they're not exactly modern—but the more—the forms of pollution that are more associated with modern life—urbanization, industrialization—which are ambient air pollution, chemical pollution—pollution of soil by chemicals—and radioactive and other hazardous materials. And so we looked first at the burden of disease and death caused by those forms of pollution.
Secondly, we had a team of economists whom we brought together to examine the economic costs of pollution, and that group was originally headed up by the late Ken Arrow, who sadly died partway through the work—through the year, and taken over by Maureen Cropper, an economist at the University of Maryland. And we made—it was a very deliberate decision to include economics in this discussion to move beyond the people who are the usual suspects in my line of work, which would be the ministry of health or the ministry of environment, because we reckoned if we wanted to move the needle on pollution and get people thinking about it constructively, we had to be able to attach a dollar cost to the damages caused by pollution as well as benefits that could be achieved by controlling pollution.
Then we had a group of mainly social scientists and some political scientists who looked at the nexus between pollution, poverty, and social injustice, and then finally we had—we had a diverse team of political scientists, engineers, smart people who thought about solutions to the problem. I'd like to acknowledge Alex Preker, who is sitting over here, a physician and economist who was a member of the commission and contributed in a lot of ways.
So let me—with that introduction, let me run through the highlights of the findings. The main finding in regard to disease and death is that pollution kills nine million people each year. That's three times more deaths per year than AIDS, malaria, and TB put together. It's more than ten times as many deaths as are caused each year by wars, terrorism, and all forms of violence put together. It's a huge number. It's far more than Ebola, which killed fewer than a million people in its worst year. It's more than road accidents, which are about two or three million. It's more than tobacco, which is about seven million. It's a big number. It is exceeded only by the number of deaths caused by dietary exposures in all their myriad forms and hypertension. Those are the only two that are bigger.
We also are quite sure that the number of deaths currently attributed to pollution in the Global Burden of Disease Study, which was our primary source—we are quite convinced that this is an undercount of the full magnitude of pollution because many of the links between pollution and disease have not yet been established and—or quantified.
Types of pollution: ambient air pollution kills about seven million people per year—sorry, six million per year—household air pollution about three million; lead about a half million; occupational exposure is about a half million; chemical exposure is about a half million and going up. If you are quick at the arithmetic, you will see that the sum there is greater than the total of seven million I quoted, and that's because there is some overlap between them; for example, indoor and outdoor air pollution overlap, and the sum is less than the—the totality is less than the sum of the parts.
In many—we found that in many parts of the world pollution is getting worse, especially ambient air pollution is clearly getting worse, especially in the rapidly industrializing cities in low- and middle-income countries—China, India, Sub-Saharan Africa, parts of Southeast Asia, parts of Latin America. Ambient air pollution is getting worse. Chemical pollution is getting worse, but very poorly quantified.
I should—a little methodological aside—it's much easier to measure air pollution than almost any other form of pollution because of the fact that today we can take advantage of satellite imagery, and satellites looking down, as long as they have some ground truth verification, can actually get quite good indications of levels, and patterns, and time trends in air pollution.
Water pollution is harder to assess. It requires sampling and chemical testing. Soil pollution, the same, and chemical pollution the same, so we're always a bit behind the curve in assessing any form of pollution other than—other than air pollution.
Pollution is very disproportionately, very unfairly distributed around the world. Ninety-two percent of the deaths due to pollution took place in low- and middle-income countries, and in practically every country, the majority of disease and death due to pollution is in poor populations, marginalized populations, indigenous peoples, and such.
The cost analysis looked mainly at two costs of pollution. We looked first of all at productivity losses, the economic losses that result when people are taken out of the workplace by illness or premature death, and we calculated that those amount to between 3 and—about 2 percent of the gross domestic product of rapidly developing countries. We looked also at health care costs—the direct and indirect health care costs that result when a person—when people are made sick by pollution, and we found that in a country like the United States, those costs amount to about 1.7 percent of the global health budget. But in rapidly developing countries, the best data we had was from Sri Lanka. In Sri Lanka, the costs of pollution-related disease were close to 7 percent of the total global health budget. So putting those productivity losses and the costs of health care together, especially in rapidly developing countries that are trying to bootstrap themselves up, it can be a huge anchor that holds down the whole economy, and that was one of the economic themes that we put out there.
The economists also put together some very nice data showing that reducing pollution brings major economic benefits. This was a tough exercise. You know, it's relatively easy for a factory to tell you what are the costs of putting on a stack scrubber, for example, or of a chemical factory telling you what it's going to cost to clean up their liquid effluent before they discharge it into the river. They know what the equipment costs, they know what the maintenance costs are, and so on.
By contrast, the costs of pollution itself are spread across large populations. They extend over many years. The data are not neatly collected in one place; the health statistics are buried in hospital budgets, the labor costs are buried in labor budgets, and it takes a lot of hard work by dedicated economists to pull these costs together. But when the teams do that, they—a very nice analysis by USEPA calculated that for every dollar invested in the control of air pollution since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970 in the USA, that the return has been $30 on the one (dollar), which is pretty good—better than Bernie Madoff could get you—(laughter)—and then another one that I was involved in, a number of years ago we looked at the economic benefit that accrued from the single action of taking lead out of gasoline. Those of you who are my age—about half of you at least—will recall back until the mid-1970s, virtually all of the gasoline sold in this country had lead. Lead was added to gasoline from the 1920s until the 1970s to increase engine performance, and the consequence was that lead was everywhere. Lead was all over our cities, in corridors along the highways between the cities, and in the people. The average blood lead level of American children back then was close to twenty micrograms per deciliter, which is a level that if a pediatrician were to see it today he would—they would hit the panic button and—but it was considered normal. We all grew up with that.
And when EPA took lead out of gasoline in 1976—it was the beginning of a ten-year process—over the next decade blood lead levels in American children fell by 90 percent—more than 90 percent. The incidence of acute lead poisoning dropped to very low levels, and then two further consequences that were not entirely anticipated: one was that the average IQ of children born in this country since 1980 is about five points higher than that of children born before 1980, and the second has to do with the fact that an IQ point is worth money; it increases a person's earning capacity over their lifetime. The economists amongst us told us that an IQ point is worth about $10,000 to a child over that child's lifetime. I mean, we all know very bright people who underperform and not such bright people that get elevated in various ways, but at least as a statistical proposition, an IQ point is worth money—$10,000 over the lifetime.
So bear with me as I do the arithmetic. We have four million babies born in this country each year. Give them each five IQ points, so that's 20 million new IQ points per year times $10,000 per year, is $200 billion per year for each annual crop of babies born in the United States since 1980, which is a big number. It's a real number, so those are the economic benefits.
Despite the great health costs, despite the great economic costs of pollution, one of the striking findings that came out of our analysis is how badly neglected is pollution in the international development agenda and in the global health agenda—just a tiny amount of money allocated to pollution relative to the dollars that go to confront other problems, which is not to say that money should be taken away from AIDs, or malaria, or TB—far from it—but that the tiny amount of money that goes into pollution control is—verges on scandalous. And one of the obvious goals of our commission was to do something about that.
We thought a lot about the topic which is the topic today, the nexus between pollution and climate change. One of the major findings is that pollution and climate change both come from pretty much the same sources. They are like the two children of a common mother. Combustion of fuels—biomass in poor countries, fossil fuels in rich countries—accounts for 85 percent of particulate air pollution. It accounts for pretty nearly all pollution by oxides of—sulfur oxides and nitrogen oxides, and it's also the major source of the carbon dioxide and the short-lived climate pollutants like black carbon that drive global climate change. So they come from the same place, and any action that's taken to reduce the amount of fuel combustion that takes place around the world is going to benefit the climate as well as the quality of the air that we breathe.
So that's all the bad news. Let me tell you the good part. The good part was that our commission came to the conclusion that pollution control is a winnable battle, and we thought that, from a political point of view, it's probably a battle that can be won much more rapidly than the battle against climate change.
One of the issues here is that when pollutants other than—when toxic pollutants, not CO2, are put into the air, most of them don't last that long whereas CO2, as you know, lasts for decades or centuries. And if pollution is controlled at source, prevented from being released in the first place, the benefits are quite readily apparent. We have good data from the United States, published a couple of years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine, showing that in the forty-five years since the passage of the Clean Air Act in 1970, levels of the six major air pollutants have fallen in this country by 70 percent—seven-zero. It's a huge decline, and that's at a time, by the way—in a time span when the GDP in this country has increased by 250 percent. I'm obviously not saying that pollution control is responsible for the growth in GDP—that would be a foolish statement—but the point is that it's possible to control pollution and at the same time grow the economy of a country. And so we advanced that argument.
We pointed to the fact that countries—like the USA, like Europe, like Japan, like Australia—have developed a tool kit to control pollution: laws, policies, regulations, technical fixes like stack scrubbers. There's a whole mix. And as a result of those, we've achieved great progress.
And then we concluded—we concluded the report by saying that the ultimate solution to pollution as well as to climate change is going to have to be—I know this is a bit idealistic—but it's going to have to be a change in the way society does business. The current economic model in which we are operating, which has been described as the take, make, use, dispose model, it's ultimately just not sustainable, especially as the world's population grows from seven, to eight, to nine billion people. It's just not sustainable.
But we were nonetheless optimistic, and we argued—perhaps a bit unrealistically—but we argued that switching to cleaner sources of fuel—solar and wind in particular—could end both pollution and climate change and so—and offers a pathway forward.
I think I should stop there. I've talked a few minutes too long already and—
BOLLYKY: Not at all.
LANDRIGAN: —let's open it up.
BOLLYKY: Great. So this idea of focusing on the more immediate health impacts of climate change is not—
LANDRIGAN: And pollution.
BOLLYKY: And pollution. But to focus just for a second on climate change, this integrated approach is not entirely new. The Obama administration also had a big focus in his second term on addressing climate change through the surgeon general, emphasizing the health impacts of climate as a way of making the problem real and immediate in a way that emphasizing the long term environmental and economic impacts alone might not.
Obviously, pollution has had more success in terms of time to its more immediate effects. Where do you see the lessons that can be learned from the fact that there wasn't that much traction on emphasizing the health consequences of climate change? What can we incorporate from that experience in trying to leverage now whatever momentum there might be on pollution to move both climate and pollution goals—where are the opportunities?
LANDRIGAN: All right. So I think it maybe begins with the fact that pollution is in your face. It's—when you are in a polluted city, when you are in New Delhi on a bad day, for example, it's awfully hard to deny the existence of pollution when you can't see across the street. And the illness that results from inhaling that dirty air, or the illness that results when you drink a glass of dirty water is pretty obvious and pretty unmistakably linked to the exposure. You just can't deny it, you can't walk away from it.
So that makes it easier in the case of pollution than in the case of climate change to talk about the links between the external event and the disease in people. But I think that it offers both—that nexus offers both an opportunity and a lesson for the climate change people. I think the climate change people, notwithstanding what President Obama did, have largely lived in a world of numbers. They've talked about levels of CO2. They've drawn very careful maps showing the rising levels of the sea in coastal cities. But they haven't—as much as I would like anyway—talked about the impacts of climate change upon people, maybe because a lot of them have been geologists and meteorologists whereas more of the people looking at pollution come from medical and public health backgrounds. I'm not sure what the origins are, but those may be some of the correlates.
And I think one of the—the opportunity then for the climate change people is perhaps two-fold: one is to talk more explicitly and to do the work which will support the talk of establishing—I'm sorry—(coughs)—it's the pollution—(laughter)—establish the links between—establish the links between climate change and health, and do scenarios.
I'm reminded back in the '70s when people in this country—Physicians for Social Responsibility, which was a group of doctors, and nurses, and others who were concerned about nuclear war, did what they called scenarios for each city. And they did basically—it looked like a bullseye on a map—what would happen if an atomic bomb landed on Wall Street—if it was a two-kiloton bomb, what would happen in the first kilometer, what would happen in the second kilometer, what would happen—and they—basically making the point that all politics are local, that all damage is local, and that people are going to be hurt.
The climate change people haven't done that very effectively, and I think the pollution people have done it almost inevitably; it was hard to avoid doing. And if the two communities can come together and work together, which makes sense given the common origin of the two problems, I think some progress could be made.
BOLLYKY: Great. And who do you see as the actors leading the push? Given the particular political moment that we are in the U.S. right now, the U.S. may not be the nation actively pursuing these issues, to put it diplomatically. One of the striking findings in your Commission report was on chemical pollution. With issues like that, it seems like there might be a role for consumers. Also, the New York Times a month ago announced that China will be creating a new ministry of ecological environment to focus on environment and pollution. Are there other countries that might lead if the U.S does not? Or, perhaps I'm being too pessimistic on the U.S., and you are more hopeful for a role for American leadership.
LANDRIGAN: Well, let me start with people outside the U.S. I think China has been a big leader here. I mean, obviously China as a long way to go on pollution. Anybody who has been in Beijing knows that. But still they have—in the current five-year plan they have targets on air, water, soil pollution. In the five-year plan they have set up this new ministry. The different provinces, of course, are semi-autonomous; not everything comes from the central government, but nonetheless, China is making some—has plans in place that are going to enable it to make some real progress if they follow through. The fact that China is approaching 20 percent of its energy now coming—in five years will be coming from renewables—that's huge. They've become a world leader in producing the infrastructure which enables the use of renewable energy. I think some countries—and China is big so it's an obvious example—but some countries are going to step into the vacuum of leadership from here.
I think there's also a role for international agencies. My colleagues and I presented this material in January to the World Bank, and Jim Kim himself was there and spoke of the opportunity for the World Bank to take leadership in this area and combine investments in the energy development with concern for the environment and for human health. So I think the bank and possibly other U.N. agencies—UNDP, for example; UNEP, World Health—can have a role to play so that as—
And then within the U.S., those of us who have spent a lot of our lives here know that, just as in China, not everything flows from Washington. And some of the states have shown great initiative—California, for example—in insisting that we seek a path forward. So I'm cautiously optimistic.
BOLLYKY: All right, those of you that would join in that optimism or would like to express your pessimism, this is your time. (Laughter.) I will call on you in the order that I see you—except when you all your placards go up simultaneously—(laughter)—so I'll just do my best.
I'll start with Alan, and then Emmanuel, and then Jay.
Q: OK, thank you very much.
Taking your point about the health issues of global climate change—and I think you are absolutely right. The global climate change community has not done enough with that, having been part of the pollution community before and also the anti-nuclear-war community.
But what about pocketbook? People think about that as well and, you know, FRAM used to have an ad, pay me now or pay me later, and I don't know how effective it was in selling air filters, but it felt effective.
What do you think about focusing on that as well as on the health issue because people are beginning to understand, in Miami and in other places, that rising sea levels are going to cost them a lot of money.
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, no, I think that—I mean, that's the same logic that led us to include economists on our commission, all right? I think that—I think that environmental economists can do some great work in that area making the local case, yeah.
BOLLYKY: Great. Emmanuel?
Q: Thank you. I'm Emmanuel d'Harcourt from Vital Strategies.
So my question is a little bit of a continuation from Thomas's. So the case is laid out in the report extremely clearly unlike other—like the case for other problems, some of which you mentioned—is compelling. But yet there are so many of these problems for which compelling data exists, particularly as a, you know, life-long public health person that's—you know, that's had experience where what seems like a slam-dunk case somehow doesn't win in court.
So I was curious to hear—continuing your previous answer in terms of in the U.S.—why—because, you know, in some ways Obama and even Clinton or supposedly good-thinking presidents didn't do that much, and you could argue that there is a whole elite that is—that should know better. I'm not talking about, you know, the Trump base—but that are—that are actively blocking things.
And then at the opposite end of the spectrum, I'd be curious to know what—for countries at the lowest end, like the Sierra Leones, and the Liberias, and the Congos, and CARs—what do you think can motivate those countries that could gain—you know, would benefit even more in some ways from the gain to invest what little they have in decreasing pollution?
LANDRIGAN: Sure. Well, in response to the first part of your question, we gave a lot of thought to why it is that pollution has been so neglected, and our finding was that there were several causes. One is that until publication of this report, nobody had ever previously looked at all forms of pollution put together. There's been some great work on air pollution. The air pollution work has always been the most advanced, and there is good work on air pollution, but relatively less on water, and far less on the chemical pollution. And so by putting them all together and amassing the sum total of human misery that results from all forms of pollution, we figured that would do something to elevate the profile.
A second factor has been fragmentation amongst the agencies that are supposed to be responsible for these things, so to give you a little snippet of U.S. history, when the Environmental Protection Agency was created in the early 1970s, it was basically created in response to Rachel Carson's book Silent Spring, and most of the components of the EPA—the air pollution people and the water pollution people—were basically pulled out of the department of what was then Health, Education and Welfare, and then a few other pieces were brought in from the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Energy. So what resulted, an unforeseen consequence of the formation of EPA, was that the environmental people were separated from the health people, and the environment people were measuring levels of chemicals in air or water, and the health people were counting bodies, but the two didn't talk to each other. And we hoped that publication of our report might do something to bring those two communities together.
A third factor is the costs have been invisible. As I said earlier, the costs of pollution are spread out, not easily calculated, and consequently not counted, and hopefully the economic work that our commission did addresses that.
And then finally, that really, as you alluded, there are vested interests who have a great interest in keeping things going just as they are and have no interest in acknowledging the problem or doing something about it. So I think those are the reasons that pollution has not been given the attention that it deserves in the developed countries.
When it comes to the very poor countries of the world—like Sierra Leone, like CAR—it's important to understand that the types of pollution that they are confronting are not at all the types of pollution that we are seeing here. So they are only beginning to see the forms of pollution that are associated with modern industrial, urban, Western life. Most of their pollution is still indoor air pollution from cookstoves and water pollution from human waste. So it's a whole different strategy for dealing with pollution in those countries.
BOLLYKY: Great. Next, I had Jay.
Q: This isn't—oh. Thanks for your remarks. Jay Koh from the Lightsmith Group.
You've talked about the common sources of the causation on the climate side of things and on the pollution side of things, and I think it's a great point. I'm wondering if you could give us a perspective on the interrelationship between the two on the effects side of the equation or, more broadly speaking, climate change's impact on health.
So, you know, Gina McCarthy just went over to the Chan School of Public Health from the EPA. You know, increasing temperature and humidity should have an exacerbating impact on airborne pollutants. We're seeing health effects—like today—increased by average temperature rise. Extreme weather events like the Houston experience spread petrochemicals across a huge chunk of Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, which we'll see really interesting, you know, class-action litigation over in the next like decade or so.
So I'm just wondering how—you know, how much analysis has really been done about the causal impact of the exacerbation of these effects by climate change, either directly through heat and humidity changes or through other vectors like tick-borne disease or mosquito-borne diseases.
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, so that's a great question. Actually, when I get up to Boston in a month, Gina McCarthy is going to be my colleague in some of the work that we're going to be doing to carry on the work of this commission.
So I think there are several interconnections here. You touched on one. On very hot days when the urban heat effect and the pollution are both high, there is going—there are clearly bad synergies that haven't yet been adequately mapped out. So for example, heat increases risk for cardiovascular disease and stroke through dehydration, through just basic overheating, and air pollution has been linked to an increased incidence of cardiac arrhythmias, increased incidence of acute myocardial infarction, increased incidence of death from heart disease and stroke. And it stands to reason when the two co-occur—as is happening today in New York and happens in other cities around the world—that there are probably synergistic effects that haven't yet been adequately charted, I would think.
A whole bunch of diseases—vector-borne diseases, not just tick-borne diseases—are going to—are becoming more severe around the world as the world gets warmer. Dengue, chikungunya fever, Zika virus are three. The spread north of tick-borne diseases in North America, the increasing range of malaria, and also the movement of malaria mosquitos up the mountains—like in Kilimanjaro, they are now trapping mosquitos at far higher altitudes than they did ten or twenty years ago. Those are all quantifiable consequences of climate change that, for the most part, haven't yet been adequately enumerated and incorporated into the calculations of the global burden of disease that we relied upon.
BOLLYKY: Great. I have Kimball and then Craig.
Q: Thank you. OK, so I work with the U.N., and World Bank, and Vital Strategies, and others on the issue of household air pollution, so a large chunk of your pollution. So one of the things that we've found is that people are resistant to evidence—that's number one.
LANDRIGAN: Resistant to—
Q: Governments and civil society are resistant to evidence, so for instance, the World Health Organization now takes the position that cleaner fossil fuels, like natural gas, are an important transition solution for health in going to a green—whenever that occurs, OK? But there is such an anti-fossil fuel bias that the developed nations and the donors don't want to give to the developing nations who actually want that solution.
My organization is dealing with a quarter of the world's population right now. We have requests from over 20 governments to help them create bottled gas sectors to replace biomass. You can't burn biomass cleanly. So they've gone with us to the donors and asked for money, but the donors say we don't believe in that solution.
Now this also comes to the issue of coordination of ministries. One of the important comments you made was that there is no coordination between ministries. We all know that health ministries have relatively little impact on primary economic planning, especially in developing countries, so you have to get the ministry of finance to buy in. And also, on the donor side, coordination between agencies, as you pointed out, in terms of defining problems that everybody can agree to and then define a solution, and an action plan, and a schedule to solve the problem is very difficult.
So this resistance to evidence, bias which can't be overcome, the mismatch between what developing countries want and developed countries are willing to do, and the issue of not pricing consequences—your economic, and social, and political scientist stuff is very important because pricing consequences and showing that it's immediately valuable, it gets people to do stuff. For instance, nobody prices the immediate consequences of longer life expectancy to a pension system or an insurance system in these developing countries. The pricing of the loss of a—of a productive year for a rural worker is not priced.
So getting all these problems dealt with and getting action—what's the solution? What's the low-hanging fruit given the array of problems which—both in terms of problem definition, and solution definition, and implementation?
LANDRIGAN: Well, we give a lot of thought to those issues, and I think you are absolutely right that, if we're going to move the needle on these things, we have to get beyond the ministry of health and the ministry of environment because they are always sitting at the bottom end of the table. It's got to be—finance, development, transport, energy are probably the big ones—maybe defense. And so they—that's the first thing.
I think in a lot of ways the low-hanging fruit here is operating through cities. You know, we had—we had one-and-a-half heads of state on the commission. We had Carlos Salinas, the former president of Mexico, and we had Princess Chulabhorn of Thailand, who is not a head of state, but very close to the head.
And it's clear that you need to get people that run things in charge, and in a lot of—I think in a lot of cases—anybody who lives in New York has seen this—that mayors have a lot more power to effect change within their sphere of influence than national leaders. And so we're spending energy these days talking to the various groups of cities that are focusing on cleaning up the environment within cities.
I think that, in terms of the different types of pollution, I would—I would venture to say that air pollution, both ambient as well as household air pollution, are the two—are the two easiest to clean up. Water pollution is more difficult because it's multi-source and hard to track, and chemical pollution is very hard to track and going to take an awful lot of work on the ground.
BOLLYKY: Is there a lower- or middle-income country, city that you would see as a positive example on attacking these issues? You mentioned that there are good agents of change over—
LANDRIGAN: Mexico City.
BOLLYKY: Mexico City?
LANDRIGAN: Mexico City. You know, it's in a bowl at eight thousand feet, bad air pollution problems, and when Salinas was president down there, he did some great work.
BOLLYKY: Great. Craig, and then we'll go to Philippe, and then Linda, and then Carol. Thank you for your patience.
Q: Thanks. I'd like to follow up on this question of indoor air.
BOLLYKY: I'm sorry—will you just say your name and your affiliation?
Q: Sorry, Craig Charney. I run a survey research firm called Charney Research, which focuses on the developing world. I knew Philip in an earlier life when we were both focusing on occupational safety and health.
The question of indoor air really strikes me because I had not realized that the figure of three million was quite as large as you said. Is it principally a question of cookstoves? Is it also smoking, either as primary or secondary smoke? What are we focusing on there—because the interesting thing is that within each house there's only one or two sources.
LANDRIGAN: It's virtually all cookstoves.
Q: Really?
LANDRIGAN: Yeah. We did not include cigarette smoking. We did not include cigarette smoking in our analysis. I mean, some people smoke and hover over the cookstove, but it's mostly cookstoves.
Let me digress a bit on that. One of the things we looked at was the—was the link between pollution and non-communicable disease, and in a country—in a rich country like the United States, the major cause of non-communicable disease is smoking, and alcohol, and diet, and lack of exercise, and obesity—what have been referred to collectively as behavioral and metabolic risk factors. But if you go down to the lower middle-income countries and the low-income countries, it turns out that the predominant cause of non-communicable diseases are, in fact—is, in fact, pollution. And in those—in the really low-income countries, it's household air pollution from cookstoves.
Q: That's fascinating. It really underlines what low-hanging fruit they are—that represents because we talk about one point source per household.
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, mostly. Yeah.
BOLLYKY: Great. Philippe?
Q: Thank you. This has been fascinating.
Philippe Burke. I'm with Apache Capital in New York. We're a hedge fund with an environmental impact strategy.
I was curious if you could shed some light on—I'm trying to understand the most likely impact one would have from one of the following two approaches. So you gave the example of walking across the street in downtown Delhi, seeing the air—the ambient air—knowing that you don't exactly know what the impact is, most likely, but you know it's probably not a good one versus walking across the street somewhere in middle American, beautiful blue sky, no pollution, you walk into a Walmart, let's say, and you think about buying a blue, plastic pail, and you see the ticket price. But you really don't know what was involved in the manufacture and distribution. But suppose that you could turn the ticket price—the ticket on the other side and you would see that, you know, that it's either a dollar amount of environmental damage associated with the manufacture and distribution of that product or, you know, seventy-five fish were killed, or thirty children in some faraway land are going to have their IQ drop by one point.
I'm trying to think—if your—did your research give you any insight on which one of those two is most likely to generate change—either seeing the immediate impact and not exactly knowing what it is, not being able to measure but on yourself, versus measuring it—it's somewhere around the planet, but actually you know what the number is. Which is likely to generate change in your mind?
LANDRIGAN: I think it's self-evident, right? We didn't—
Q: The former?
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, the former. I mean, we didn't study that per se, but I think from—if I can generalize from many other spheres of experience, it's—clearly the immediate threat is what humans—
Q: Even if you don't know what it is?
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, yeah, yeah. I mean, just consider the allocation of resources in American medicine. Dan Fox and I worked on this many years ago. Something like 97 percent of the total health spending in this country is dedicated to the care of people who are already sick. Some people say 5 percent goes to prevention, some say 3 (percent). It depends what you count. But in any event, it's a small percentage.
And yet the dollars that go into disease prevention are far more cost effective than the dollars that go into treatment, but human beings are wired to deal with immediate threats. I think it's just who we are. We're primates.
BOLLYKY: That is an interesting analogy to the calorie counts, and—
Q: I was just thinking of that, right.
BOLLYKY: —which are at least direct in the sense that calories are directly experienced by the consumer. It's an interesting question of whether or not the results of calorie countries—the impact of such policies are generalizable to things that won't be directly, necessarily, affecting the consumer.
Q: Hi. Is that on?
I am a film producer, and I'm interested in the ways in which information is communicated in a mass—to a mass audience. And I'm intrigued by your comment that the climate change people haven't talked about the impact on people.
So following up pretty much on what Philippe said, I'm wondering would it not be productive for you on this new commission that you are doing to include advertising people, communicators to think through—it should not be that hard to create either a continuing character, which is the modern Smokey the bear kind of person who would be the messenger about what this information means to each person—
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, I—
Q: —or some kind of a local strategy involving communication.
I'm just—what I'm saying is to get beyond the ivory tower and to really think about how you take the next step and get the information out to the masses.
LANDRIGAN: I think that's a great idea. We did not have such a person on the commission. We just—we didn't think of it. We had 52 people, we had lots of disciplines, but we didn't have any filmmakers, or advertising people, or professional communicators.
I'd be happy to talk with you about that.
Q: I'd be happy to talk with you.
BOLLYKY: Some of you who may have been pulled in to all the progress literature coming out—Steven Pinker's book Enlightenment Now or Hans Rosling's book Factfulness. Both books have sections on climate, and they're interesting to read to see how that issue fits into the broader narrative of the march toward progress. In Factfulness, the argument is that climate folks have tried to scare people, and using very large numbers, and in doing so they have missed out—they have missed out in quantifying the problem in realistic, direct human terms.The Pinker argument is more that, long-term, climate change is much ado about nothing, and we will find a way to adjust.
Both books have, by and large, been very well-received, and I think they say something about where we are on climate change. We still have great divisions about what the human impact of the problem will be, even twenty to thirty years into climate change being a topic of great political or popular attention. We still don't understand or agree on what the human consequences will be.
LANDRIGAN: Could I offer a reflection on that?
BOLLYKY: Please.
LANDRIGAN: So I'm—some of you will know that I'm a pediatrician, and I still see patients and families, especially consultations where people come and ask about various toxic exposures—lead, pesticide, plastics and things like that. And one of the things I've learned over the years is that you fail utterly in those conversations if you simply try to scare the hell out of people. It simply doesn't work. They either blow you off and say it doesn't matter; we're just going to have to live our lives, or they—or they—a few of them get paranoid and try to live in a bubble. But in either case it's a failed means of communication. And the only way that you succeed in communicating this information to people and getting folks to change their lives is to give them actionable data that they can use to empower themselves to take matters into their own hands.
The actions they might take would be kind of trivial—like not microwaving in plastic—but it gives them something to do, and they feel they are doing something about the issue, and they will respond and take ownership.
Q: Hi. All of the last few questions have related to my question, which was about dissemination. And I'm an educator, so I care a lot about that. And I know that a lot of young people, students, really care deeply and want to do something.
But the first question was how do we get ahold of your report because I've never seen it. I'm sure some of the medical and health people here have, but I think it would be good if it's—and if it's not readable by the general public, perhaps some way of getting material out to doctors—put it in doctors' offices, and so on.
But really mostly I was going to ask more about the same issue that you are bringing up. The social media is the way to go as we've learned. I guess it's Instagram that's the best one—(laughter)—although I don't have it, but apparently that's the in-in-in—most effective.
But all of these things, it seems to me—perhaps there should be a whole other group that does brainstorming about getting the public to be stirred because I think we've seen what happens when more and more people really care about an issue.
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, I couldn't agree more. We did work hard to write the report in accessible language. The report is on—it's open access. It's online, it's free, at no charge. If you are having trouble locating it, give me your email address and I will send it to you when I get back to my office. But it's—The Lancet is an open-access journal.
And we worked very hard to publicize the report when it came out last October/November. We had three thousand media hits around the world, and all sorts of media, read or viewed by an estimated two billion people.
The problem, of course, is that most of that is one pass. It's not sustained. And I think both of you are correct, that we need to have a strategy for keeping the message going.
BOLLYKY: I was impressed with the media coverage the Commission report got upon its release. As you said, it's hard to keep that going, but it did—as health reports come out and as papers in a medical or a scientific—(inaudible, background noise). But all the initial attention was positive.
I have Alan, and then we still have a few minutes after that, so you will be subjected to more of my questions unless you ask your own. So, Alan—
Q: OK, just following up on the public dissemination, my career has basically been in public understanding of science. You can tell how successful I've been at that by how much people know.
But I'm wondering, one of the things that people care about is, as you said, doing something about it, and part of that is collecting data. I was part of something called the Baby Tooth Survey back in St. Louis where mothers gave their teeth—and you gave a tooth for science and data, and people were very much involved.
What kinds of things can you think of—people taking individual measurements in their home of temperature or outside the door—what kinds of things could be done to involve people in the data collection that would then feed into a larger whole? The bird survey is a good example. I mean, there are lots of specific—what would be most effective do you think in terms of that?
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, I think information is a powerful driver. The story of Beijing—so when Gina McCarthy was the administrator of EPA, she had the idea—at least it's attributed to her; you may know better, Tom, than I, but it's attributed to her—was her thought to put the air pollution monitor on the roof of the U.S. embassy in Beijing, and to make those data publicly available.
Well, as soon as the data started getting out there, there's a lot of bright kids in China who—some of whom developed their own little air pollution monitors, and they started putting information out, and all of sudden there was a groundswell of information from the people, which forced action, you know. I think data are very powerful.
BOLLYKY: It was international news when the State Department did the same in Delhi, as you may remember—
LANDRIGAN: Yes, right, right.
BOLLYKY: —and there was a lot of pushback on that. And they stuck with it to their credit.
It's automatically on.
Q: Oh, OK. Hi, thank you. Kavita Desai with the U.N. Foundation.
So what struck me from your presentation is how much your research links in with the U.N.'s global goals or the sustainable development goals—
LANDRIGAN: Uh-huh.
Q: —from specifically targets around clean cookstoves and energy to sustainable production and consumption being one of the seventeen goals.
I'm just wondering—as we come up to July, there will be the high-level political forum to review all of the goals and, broadly, the full agenda—how this data and this research can be plugged into these bigger forums where you do get people from different ministries—they are not just the environment ministry, but from also health and the social sectors—to try and inform policies and kind of feed back into the larger system.
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, that's a great question. So actually, one of the sustainable development goals, Goal 3.9, speaks directly to reducing disease caused by pollution. So my colleague, Richard Fuller, who was at the table when they were writing the health goal, Goal #3, and he got 3.9 in there.
We did a mapping analysis in the commission report charting out how many of the different SDGs would be advanced if pollution were to be prevented, and it's about two-thirds of them. There's a little chart in there.
BOLLYKY: Great. Noelle-Claire.
Q: So my name is Noelle LeCann from the AlphaSource Climate Fund.
So I'm just wondering, do private investors have a seat at the table where they can actually seed some of these ideas, and get them off the ground, and be helpful?
LANDRIGAN: Yeah, we've talked to private investors. I don't—there was not an investor, per se, on the commission, but we've certainly started to have those conversations, yes.
Q: Maybe we can be part of that dialogue.
LANDRIGAN: And I'd be happy to continue them, absolutely, yeah.
BOLLYKY: Is there a particular area where you think those investors might be helpful, or that there is particular interest, or a chance for progress?
LANDRIGAN: Renewables.
BOLLYKY: Renewables, yeah. Great. I have Jay—well, let's ask Alex because he hasn't had a question yet, and he was on the commission, so it's the least we can do. So please—
Q: Yeah, I just wanted to follow up on the investor side. I do wonder whether or not one could reach out a bit more to the whole investment area of sustainability, which has now become a very big topic. That probably has more traction than pollution because there is a lot of—there is a lot of money in that business, and if one can find the angle where there would be a win-win, both with the sustainability and the pollution, then even though people may not be so focused on the pollution side, you get the benefit of those kind of investments. And that's a big area today, and there's a lot of money going into that.
BOLLYKY: And Professor Greenberg, I think you get the last question.
Q: Somewhere I read—and it may well be in your commission report—but that establishing solar panels on individual homes in developing economies is, in a sense, an easy way, an investment-friendly way of developing energy and power without pollution.
Has that gotten any traction? I'm not sure where I read that, but I was just fascinated by the concept because it seems so straightforward, you know, au courant, and doable.
LANDRIGAN: So people have talked about what have been called "leapfrog" technologies, and my favorite example is the cell phone. When I—back in the day when I was eradicating smallpox in Africa when I was working for CDC, we had one person on the team whose job—all day, every day—was to try to place the daily call back to Atlanta from Africa to report on the day's progress. And it was a full-time operation trying to get a call through the wire, and we figured that communication in Africa would never get off the ground because they would—there just weren't enough resources to wire the continent. And along came the cell phone and the satellites up there, and we leapfrogged—or leaptfrogged over the need to wire the continent.
People have held out the notion that little solar panels attached to whatever, whether it's a composting toilet or a stop light, have that transformative power. I think it remains to be seen in the practical world whether it pans out.
BOLLYKY: And at least in the U.S. there is a trade component to this, of course, in that solar panels are becoming a little more expensive than they used to be. (Laughter.) So we may be moving in the opposite direction.
But I want to thank Phil so much for being here and wish him best of luck in his new post.
LANDRIGAN: Thank you. Thank you. (Applause.)
Top Stories on CFR
Trump's Foreign Policy Moments
Donald J. Trump's presidency has marked a profound departure from U.S. leadership in areas such as trade and diplomacy, as well as an across-the-board toughening of immigration policies.
Timeline by Ankit Panda, Rocio Cara Labrador and Amelia Cheatham December 12, 2017
Remembering the Best (and Worst) Presidential Inaugural Addresses
Blog Post by James M. Lindsay January 18, 2021 The Water's Edge
How COVID-19 Is Harming State and City Budgets
The coronavirus pandemic is placing enormous budget pressure on state and local governments, threatening deep and potentially lasting cuts to education, infrastructure, and other important investments.
Backgrounder by Anshu Siripurapu and Jonathan Masters January 12, 2021


The live debut of The Peter Gusmano Project is April 1st at KJ Farrel's at 8PM. I'll be singing a couple of tunes, as well as playing bass and keyboard. I will also be performing that night with the Carl Roa Band. This is the first Carl Roa Band show in quite a while.
I spent some time in the studio with Carl both working on a new CRB release, and I also played bass on his project with Reggie Hendrix. That should be released shortly.
I'm also working on scoring a short film with Spyros Poulos, and a hundred other things. 2011 has brought a ton of new projects to the studio.
Also, some new dates with The Rob Balducci Band will be up shortly. Some more Night of Pure Guitar Shows with Dave Weiner are coming up.


The David Delight Pro is an audio-visual entrainment (AVE) system. The word 'entrainment' describes a process whereby one system brings (or entrains) another system into its frequency. For example, when several mechanical clocks are placed together in the same room they begin to tick in unison. In the case of the brain, exposure to specific frequencies (as represented by the terms Delta, Theta, Alpha, Beta, SMR, and Gamma) through sound or light pulsations causes the brain to entrain to those frequencies. The DDP uses flashes of light and pulsed tones to gently and safely guide the brain into various brain wave patterns to boost your mood, help with sleep, sharpen your mind and increase your level of relaxation.
To use the DDP you simply put on an eye-set that looks like a sunglass except that you cannot see through it. Lights are embedded on the inside of the lens. You put on the glasses, close your eyes and notice flashing lights. They may seem strong at first but you quickly get used to them (and you can turn down the intensity if you wish). When you put on the headset you hear pulsing tones, like the sound of a distant helicopter. You will also hear a heartbeat tone every couple of seconds. This tone is an added bonus because it helps you to regulate your breathing for smooth even inhalations and exhalations. Such breathing affects your Heart Rate Variability (HRV) a reliable measure of physical and mental health.
Mind Alive is a solid company that has been in this field for 30 years. Unlike many of their competitors they encourage and support research into the effectiveness of their systems. The founder, Dave Siever, is a recognized speaker in the brain training/neuroscience community and has authored several research papers that have been published in respectable journals. Olympic athletes, golf pros, professional sports coaches use and recommend his systems for peak athletic performance. Others find relief from chronic pain, ADD, depression and anxiety, and enjoy improved sleep, better mental focus and a host of other benefits. Anyone who has struggled to figure out how to get the help they need to recover from a head injury should also consider trying these relatively low-cost devices.
To order a brain training system from Mind Alive call Carol at 1-800-661-6463, or simply send an email to info@mindalive.com. And when you're ready to make the purchase, tell them Better Brain Better Life sent you; that way you'll receive our discount. The system comes with a 30-day money-back guarantee but I'm betting you will be very happy with it – just like we are!
*It is important to seek professional medical and psychological help for brain-related challenges. There is no one brain training answer that fits every person and situation.


text:
Исполнитель: Mel Torme
Lullaby of Birdland2012 Remastered Version
— Mel Tormé & The Marty Paich Dek-Tette
The Way You Look Tonight2012 Remastered Version
Isn't It Romantic2015 Remastered Version
Lulu's Back in Town2012 Remastered Version
— Mel Torme, The Marty Paich Dek-Tette
Nice Work If You Can Get It2012 Remastered Version
It's Only a Paper MoonLive at the Crescendo
You Leave Me Breathless2015 Remastered Version
They All Laughed2012 - Remaster
When the Sun Comes Out2012 Remastered Version
Just One of Those ThingsLive at the Crescendo
Poor Little Extra Girl2015 Remastered Version
Top Hat, White Tie and Tails2012 Remastered Version
Polka Dots and Moonbeams2015 Remastered Version
I Like to Recognize the Tune2012 Remastered Version
Something's Gotta Give2012 Remastered Version
The Carioca2012 Remastered Version
The Boy Next DoorLive; 2014 - Remaster
They Can't Take That Away from Me2012 Remastered Version
Stay as Sweet as You Are2015 Remastered Version
Lover Come Back to MeLive at the Crescendo
When April Comes Again2012 Remastered Version
Tenderly2012 Remastered Version
All This and Heaven2015 Remastered Version
I Wish I Were in Love Again2012 Remastered Version
The Lady Is a Tramp2012 Remastered Version
A Foggy Day2012 Remastered Version
It's a Blue World2015 Remastered Version
Fascinating Rhythm2012 Remastered Version
What Is This Thing Called Love?Live at the Crescendo
How Long Has This Been Going On2015 Remastered Version
Let's Call the Whole Thing Off2012 Remastered Version
I Love to Watch the Moonlight2012 Remastered Version
One for My Baby (One for the Road)Live at the Crescendo
I Got Plenty O' Nuttin2012 Remastered Version
I've Got It Bad, and That Ain't Good2015 Remastered Version
Cheek to Cheek2012 Remastered Version
They Go to San Diego2015 Remastered Version
The Tender TrapLive at the Crescendo
Sing for Your Supper2012 Remastered Version
A Fine Romance2012 Remastered Version
A Nightingale Sang in Berkeley SquareLive at the Crescendo
The Piccolino2012 Remastered Version
Million Dollar Baby2015 Remastered Version
I'm Beginning to See the LightLive at the Crescendo
Keeping Myself for You2012 Remastered Version
Manhattan2012 Remastered Version
I Know Why2015 Remastered Version
It's De Lovely2012 Remastered Version
ЛейблUnion Square
It's Only a Paper Moon Live at the Crescendo
Yes, it's only a paper moon Sailing over a cardboard sea But it wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me Yes, it's only a canvas sky
Yes, it's only a paper moon Sailing over a cardboard sea But it wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me Yes, it's only a canvas sky Hanging over a muslin tree But it wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me Without your love It's a honky-tonk parade Without your love It's a melody played on a penny arcade It's a Barnum and Bailey world Just as phony as it could be But it wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me Yes, it's only a paper moon Sailing over that cardboard sea It wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me It's only a canvas sky Hanging over a muslin tree But it wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me Without your love It's a honky-tonk parade Without your love It's a melody played on a penny arcade It's a Barnum and Bailey world Just as phony as it could be It wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me Without your love It's a honky-tonk parade Without your love It's a melody played on a penny arcade It's a Barnum and Bailey world Just as phony as it could be But it wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me It wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me It wouldn't be make believe If you believe in me
Mel Tormé at the Crescendo
2014 Live;2014 - Remaster
2014 Remastered 2014; Live
It's Only a Paper Moon


Download MLA template from EssayThinker.com for free!
While other styles require a separate title page, MLA does not. On the first page of the actual work, in the upper left-hand corner, the author lists (doubled-spaced) his/her name, the instructor's name, the class or course information, and the date, each on a separate line. The title of the work is centered following a double space, and the text of the work begins following another double space.
A Running Header should be placed in the upper right-hand corner with the author's last name and the page number. Pagination begins on the second page of the document.
The font should be one of the easily read options and the size should be 12 pt.


11.5" x 9.5" x 7.5"..
Comes in a Hanging Plastic Box with Picturepost 390 grams parcelwig circumference 60 cmplease note a..
Palm Tree drinks cooler stands 1.8mtrs high. It holds approx 60 12oz cans. Easily inflated think off..
Mask 1/2 Face Funny Face Cheeky..
Mask 1/2 Face Funny Face Mouthful..
Soft material with elastic cord to hold on.LENGTH 37CM WIDTH 28CM DEPTH 15CM..
Soft material with elastic cord to hold on.LENGTH 35CMWIDTH 33CM DEPTH 12CM..
Mask Face Moving Mouth 2 part Old Man..
Mask Half Funny Old Man..


There's an urgent need for fresh approaches that cut through walls of rhetoric, dissolve cultural and political boundaries, and inspire stewardship of a planet in crisis. Our relationship to media and technology must evolve.
Join us at one of North America's most unique and intimate media gatherings. Be part of a collaborative community of filmmakers, writers, and new media makers who are drawn to explore new worldviews and create flow states that support reflection, dialogue, and a deeper relationship with nature.
At The Nature of Media, we'll discuss narratives and aesthetics that appeal to new regions of the mind and re-examine our relationships with technology, creativity, storytelling and community across a broad range of platforms and methodologies.
Along with new approaches in documentary and dramatic films, emergent technologies like projection mapping, location-based storytelling, digital journalism, and virtual reality are merging with traditional forms of art. They also spark new questions. Are these better ways to instill empathy and action? How do they dovetail into traditional storytelling models? Who are the thought leaders in this type of work? How can we reach broader audiences? And how do we support a shift in racial, gender, and power norms in the current media climate?
Come prepared to think big in a powerful natural landscape, and to engage with inspiring work. We'll learn, mentor, cross-pollinate, and reinvigorate — all amidst the beautiful, rejuvenating surroundings of Hollyhock, and the unceded traditional territories of the Klahoose, Tla'amin and Homalco First Nations on Cortes Island, British Columbia.