Implications of the Proposed Budget Cuts for HIV Programs 

[Trump cuts will hurt those affected with HIV/AIDS] 

Carlos del Rio, MD reviewing  Walensky RP et al.  Ann Intern Med 2017 Aug 29. 

Cuts in PEPFAR funding would result in an increased number of HIV transmissions and deaths in heavily affected countries.

Unprecedented success in the global response to HIV has been achieved as a result of substantial increases in resources for programs such as the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Close to 20 million people are now receiving antiretroviral therapy, and both mortality and new infections are in decline. Nevertheless, additional resources plus optimization of available funding will be needed to reach the UNAIDS 90-90-90 goals, so that by 2020, 90% of persons HIV will know their HIV status, 90% of persons with HIV will receive sustained antiretroviral treatment (ART), and 90% of persons receiving ART will achieve virologic suppression.

However, in its current budget, the Trump administration proposes cutting foreign aid by a third, which would affect some $6.7 billion for programs focused on HIV/AIDS, including PEPFAR, the Global Fund, CDC, and USAID. Now, investigators have used the Cost-Effectiveness of Preventing AIDS Complications-International (CEPAC-I) model to estimate the impact of such resource contraction in South Africa and Ivory Coast.

During the next decade, under current conditions, 3.24 million new HIV infections and 4.26 million HIV-related deaths are projected to occur in South Africa, and 225,000 new HIV infections and 270,000 HIV-related deaths are projected in the Ivory Coast. When the authors considered a menu of possible scale-back strategies, they estimated that an increase of 0.5% to 19.4% new HIV infections and an increase of 0.6% to 39.1% deaths would occur. None of the scale-back strategies resulted in more than a 30% decrease in savings, largely due to commitments to patients already in care and on ART. Moreover, any cost savings in the short-term most often resulted in higher costs later, due to increased HIV transmissions.

Faced with the selection of difficult alternatives, the authors identified strategies that delay presentation to care (in South Africa) and reduce retention (in the Ivory Coast) as those that might generate the least harm for the most savings. The scale-back strategies that maximize efficiencies and minimize harm would lead to no more than $900 saved in domestic spending for each year of life lost in recipient nations.

1. Walensky RP et al. Do less harm: Evaluating HIV programmatic alternatives in response to cutbacks in foreign aid. Ann Intern Med 2017 Aug 29; [e-pub]. (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28847013)

From Highway Boondoggle to Neighborhood Boulevard

In a recent Facebook post, I got caught in a back, and forth about the never ending transit conversation in Hillsborough County, Florida. There was a criticism of a former county commissioner Mark Sharpe (Republican) and his transit boondoggles. I've known Mark for a long time. I'm well aware of the expenses of the many transportation studies and the waste they generated. I've barked at him for years. Sometimes there were small victories but saw very little manifest. Republicans dominate our County, and they vote party line whether it's right or wrong.  We have for years lobbied, participated in endless roundtable discussions demonstrated and appeared in droves to the many public meetings and for what? Zero.

Charrette meeting in Seminole Heights, Tampa 2016

Aside from all the rhetoric, the fact remains a mass transit system is necessary for a burgeoning metropolis such is the case of the Tampa Bay region. We need a dedicated source of funding, raising the millage by 2 points would be a good start.  We need a functioning urban planning team with a mandate to help build a grid and systems to move us forward. What we have today lacks the political mandate to grow an integrated system with mass transit and roads.

The current County Commission continues to allot lands to developers without incorporating the impact of how those future residents travel from point A to point B. It has been like this for the whole tenure of the Republican led county commission. Their mantra is if it doesn't make a profit it's not worth it. Well, there's a good argument against that logic. When it comes to most government services, they still have to operate in bad economic times. The private sector, on the other hand, tends to bailout when times are tough.  Remember the hoopla around Ybor Centro? Though it's not an essential government service, the premise is the same, when it crashed taxpayers then had to foot the bill.  Mass transit is mostly a government service. Airlines get massive subsidies from the federal government. Some from the Department of Defense, others from the Essential Air Services program to aid rural areas. The benefactors are US based airlines. You would think they would have loyalty to country and its workforce, but many have outsourced other components with those subsidies.  The private sector is not all compassionate. It's all about the investors and in most cases shortchange their employees.

Image courtesy TBBJ by Janelle Erwin

Concept by Joshua Frank, Urban Planner

There is good news. A new generation is stepping up to the plate proposing viable alternatives to our transportation needs, incorporating both the public and private sector. There's currently a proposal to create a Boulevard to replace the north south segment of I-275. It offers opportunities for the industry by way of building the infrastructure. Afterward, condos, apartments, offices, tech centers, schools, the possibilities are many.  Two things stand out, unlike roads, it expands our tax base and provide upward mobility for the masses.

Metropolitan Planning Organization Public Meeting August 1, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.

Smart growth’ policies attract younger, wealthier newcomers at the expense of longtime residents

Advocates for “smart growth” have long extolled the virtues of creating green spaces, bike paths and pedestrian areas for the benefit of all city dwellers.

But a report from the pro-business D.C. Policy Center shows that smart growth designs actually push out long-time, low-income residents to make way for younger, wealthier newcomers.

“Urban planners and local governments attach great value to cultivating neighborhoods where residents are close to public transportation or can walk or bike to work,” the D.C. Policy Center says in a report released Tuesday. “In fact, these policies may be hurting our poorer residents.”

Written by the center’s executive director, Yesim Sayin Taylor, the report says that while more transportation options in newly redesigned neighborhoods create a boon for those who can afford the convenience, transit-oriented development programs can create social inequities and increase the pace of gentrification.

The D.C. Policy Center’s report focuses on the District, but smart growth planning has played a prominent role in many other U.S. cities.

Smart growth urban planning promotes small, walkable and bicycle-friendly neighborhoods that provide access to all the needs of residents, including grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and workplaces. In essence, they become little cities within the larger city and are meant to curb urban sprawl.

National smart growth organizations say they aren’t blind to the unintended consequences of redeveloped neighborhoods and place the onus on cities for creating enough of them.

“Nationally, there is no question that when cities are building smart growth neighborhoods, people want to live there. When that happens, you have people with more money ousting people with less money,” said Geoff Anderson, president of the nonprofit Smart Growth America. “So we need to have public policy that makes sure people who have been there for a long time can benefit.”

Mr. Anderson said the lack of smart growth neighborhoods drives up housing prices in cities where smart growth has been employed. Those areas end up pricing out residents who may have been in their homes for generations.

“What we’re seeing is gross failure in cities supplying these kinds of places,” Mr. Anderson said in an interview with The Washington Times. “Supply has to be in balance with demand. Tons of people want them, but there’s not enough.”

Mostly high-income young workers are benefiting, he said, but smart growth needs to expand to all residents, regardless of their economic means, for the concept’s goals to be realized.

Cheryl Cort, policy director for the local Coalition for Smarter Growth, agreed with Mr. Anderson.

“The city should continue to do more to help residents throughout the city have better access to transit and better access to jobs, education and training,” she said. “We need to ensure that our city makes it possible for everyone to share in the rising prosperity.”

With the District growing in population and becoming more attractive to young, well-off residents, Ms. Cort said, developers and planners can’t lose focus of those who are being left out.

“Increased demand for housing experienced by the city has brought both good news — fiscal health — and bad news — dramatic loss of housing affordability,” Ms. Cort told The Times. “We focus much of our attention on creating and preserving more affordable housing, especially in transit-accessible neighborhoods.”

According to the 2015 American Community Survey conducted by the Census Bureau, most D.C. residents who walk or bike to work live close to the downtown corridors and relatively few live east of the Anacostia River, where housing is much more affordable for lower-income residents.

“More residents east of the river drive to work than any other section of the city, despite low access to cars,” Ms. Taylor says in the D.C. Policy Center report.

East-of-the-river residents have fewer options for work travel because employment is farther away, the report notes. In those neighborhoods, more than one-third of residents commute 45 minutes or more to work each day.

Ms. Taylor said smart growth policies have good intentions but developments being built across the city must do more.

She said the city needs to expand its stock of affordable housing and promote dense, mixed-income developments along transit-accessible corridors. Also, Metro and bus networks need to provide accessible and reliable options for all residents.

“And — in conjunction with these measures — we should continue to improve streets for pedestrians and cyclists so that residents of all neighborhoods can safely access these healthier modes of transportation,” Ms. Taylor said.

Mr. Anderson said development needs to catch up with demand and that cities need to have public policy measures, such as housing and density bonuses, so people who have been there a long time can benefit from the construction.

“We need to use other tools to make these places accessible. It is really important for low-income families and individuals to live in a place where they have access to opportunity,” he said.

Ms. Taylor said she is not against smart growth but added that it must be implemented in a way that doesn’t harm the city’s most vulnerable residents.

“To be clear, bike lanes are good. Safe sidewalks are good. They are relatively cheap investments that reduce congestion and help improve health,” she said. “But we don’t have to don a veil of ignorance to formulate transportation policy. Those who can walk or bike to work have already won the income lottery.”

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jun/8/smart-growth-discourages-longtime-low-income-resid/

Finally, a much anticipated mass transportation project is coming to fruition

[Finally, a plan for a Bus Rapid Transit system connecting downtown St. Pete to Pinellas County beaches is ready to be proposed to the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization. This is a step in the right direction. I hope Hillsborough County is watching because our HART bus system needs the same type of BRT service. It's a plan if approved, is likely to be ready to break ground once funding is appropriated. But first, comes the leg work. Working with the PMPO to see it approved and included in the Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) this June. To learn more click on the link

Pinellas transit authority inches closer to long-anticipated speedy bus route

Janelle Irwin is a reporter for the Tampa Bay Business Journal and wrote this article for TBBJ - 4/17/17

The Pinellas Suncoast Transit Authority is getting ready to take the next step in implementing Bus Rapid Transit connecting downtown St. Petersburg to the beaches.

PSTA is sending an environmental impact report on the project to the Federal Transit Administration this month.The route would include traffic signal prioritization, so buses could make the trek from Tampa Bay to the Gulf beaches faster. The agency will also begin public outreach on the plan. PSTA will bring its BRT pitch to the Pinellas County Metropolitan Planning Organization in June to add the project to its Transportation Improvement Plan, a necessary step in launching service.

PSTA has also developed a priority route. As anticipated, the majority of the route will run along First Avenues North and South. Buses will also traverse Pasadena Boulevard and Gulf Boulevard through St. Pete Beach. The route will loop around downtown St. Pete from 1st Avenue North to 6th Avenue South along 3rd and 4th streets.

The plan will require bike lanes along portions of 1st Avenues North and South to be relocated to Central Avenue. The plan requires minimal changes to existing traffic patterns, and some sections of the route may require road widening at stations.

Stops will be located all along 1st Avenues North and South as well as near the hospital on Pasadena Boulevard, Sunset Drive and at the Don CeSar and TradeWinds Resort on Gulf Boulevard.

There are still questions about how the beach stops along Gulf Boulevard will be funded. The city of St. Pete Beach has refused to give additional funding to PSTA for expanded service. The city is not a PSTA member like most cities in the county, which means the city does not contribute a portion of property tax revenue to the agency. Instead, it pays a $500,000 flat fee for minimal service.

St. Pete Beach Mayor Alan Johnson told the Tampa Bay Business Journal last month he didn’t think the additional service was necessary.

PSTA plans to deliver the report being prepared for the Federal Transit Administration in August. It also includes recommendations for the downtown St. Pete circulator that would complement BRT. Those recommendations include 10- to 15-minute frequency at stops and all-electric vehicles.

Read the full article at Tampa Bay Business Journal 

Every American should be studying US History. Start by reading Federalist #10

The Federalist No. 10

The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection (continued)

Daily Advertiser
Thursday, November 22, 1787
[James Madison]

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union, none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens, equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time, that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community. There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity, according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties, inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them. Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality; yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor, in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the causes of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide, we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can admit of no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole; a communication and concert result from the form of government itself; and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations. Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice, pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages, and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is, whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number, in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic, -- is enjoyed by the Union over the States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union, increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their particular States but will be unable to spread a general conflagration through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a political faction in a part of the Confederacy, but the variety of sects dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district, than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and supporting the character of Federalists.

Noah's Ark 2.0

So God said to Noah, “Seven days from now I will send rain on the earth for forty days and forty nights" Genesis 5:32-10:1 New International Version (NIV)

That is one powerful message! Noah had no doubt of its authenticity. He did not question it. If God said it, then it must be true.  Fast forward to the year 2017. Noah is no longer around, but God is now sending a similar message.  The oceans will rise, cities will flood, and many will die. This time the message was received by the new Noah, The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA 2.0. However, unlike Noah, who took God at his word, today's humans especially the "Conservative American Christians" are arguing against Him. The Buddhists and Muslims are on board.  Even the people's pope, Pope Francis is asking world leaders to heed the guidance from science. It is not complicated.  On the contrary, it is a simple absolute truth, the Earth's climate is changing. 

Massive Full-Scale Version of Noah's Ark

We have the architects, engineers, electricians, plumbers, carpenters and the tools to build NOAA's Ark 2.0 but instead of governments working together some are denialists. Americans are in a delusional downward spiral. They are wasting time, money and finite natural resources building replicas of the mythical biblical Ark. Instead, of being good stewards of Earth.

China's Three Gorges Dam

The Chinese government is busy building ghost cities, and mega structures like the Three Gorges Dam creating an inevitable environmental catastrophe. The satellite image compares the river before the dam in 1987 and in 2006 after it was completed.

Vladimir Putin and Rex Tillerson

Vladimir Putin sees climate change as a means to hinder Russia's economic growth. 

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto

Thankfully not all governments are working against the science, Mexico, India, France, Costa Rica, Germany, Canada and many other governments are taking Climate Change seriously. Hopefully, the major political players will step up to the plate and help build Noah's Ark 2.0. 

NOAA's Ark

Positive Reinforcement, if only we could do it with humans

[This training guide by Emily Larlham is for humans to learn how to train their pets with positive reinforcement. If instead, you substitute someone you know like a neighbor, friend or family member and practice Progressive Reinforcement, you just may make the world a better place. Mauricio Rosas, 1/28/2017]

Progressive Reinforcement Training Manifesto

By Emily Larlham

The Need for a New Term:

A type of animal training exists that involves no forms of intimidation, confrontation, violence, reprimands, or domination. This non-violent kind of training has gone under many names: “Clicker Training,” “Positive Training,” “Positive Reinforcement Training,” and “Reward Training,” among others.   There is a need for a more specific, more accurate, more inspirational term. "Progressive Reinforcement Training."

Service Dogs from New Horizons Service Dogs are trained to understand

"Yes" as their reward for desired behavior. (added by Mauricio Rosas)

The above terms have been used so loosely in recent years that they have lost their original meanings.  How has this happened?  Trainers who use compulsion methods may incorporate a clicker (a noise maker to mark desirable behavior) and refer to themselves as a “Clicker Trainers.”  Trainers who use painful or intimidating methods may include food or toy rewards in their training and refer to themselves as “Reward Trainers” or “Positive Reinforcement Trainers.”  It is already possible that a member of the public may seek the guidance of a trainer who claims to be “Positive,” only to find out that this she routinely uses physical violence towards animals. I propose a new term the general public can use to refer to this type of modern training – a training system that is not only humane, compassionate, and reliable but is also based on the latest scientific studies.  Because this form of training consistently incorporates the latest and most reliable scientific findings, and because it furthers an evolutionary progress toward a more harmonious relationship between humans and the animals who live with them, it shall be referred to as

Progressive Reinforcement Training essentially means teaching animals by rewarding desired behaviors and excluding the intentional use of physical or psychological intimidation.

Progressive Reinforcement Training means:

1) Training by rewarding desirable behaviors so they will be more likely to occur in the future while preventing reinforcement of behaviors that are undesirable.

An example:  Letting a dog walk forwards while the leash remains loose to sniff a bush as a reward for not pulling, while not letting the dog reach the shrub if the leash becomes tight (so that pulling on a leash is never rewarded).

Another example: If you are training a dog to greet guests politely, you first reinforce the dog for calmly keeping all four feet on the floor (not jumping) in exciting situations, and then when the dog does jump up, you remove your attention briefly (by turning away from the dog- as attention is rewarding). However, if you simply tried to train a dog not to jump up by turning away from the dog repeatedly without rewarding him for the correct choices – the dog could become frustrated.  It is true that if the dog figures out that the jumping is not getting attention, the dog will try an alternate behavior – however, a dog will more likely try jumping higher, barking, whining, and nipping over standing still or sitting for attention. By rewarding the dog for what you want him to do first, you give the dog a default behavior to try when what he is doing is not working.

Examples of Rewards:

Roscoe will do anything for a toy! 

(added by Mauricio Rosas)

Food, toys, attention, people, other animals, running, sniffing, swimming, going outside, coming inside, etc.

Keep in mind the animal chooses what is rewarding, not the trainer. This means that if you give your dog a treat for sitting and then ask him to sit again and he doesn’t sit, it’s very likely the dog does not find the treat rewarding.  Other things to keep in mind are rewards will not be effective if the animal is full, or the animal is stressed.

2) Interrupting and preventing undesirable behaviors without physical or psychological intimidation, as well as rewarding the other response (training a behavior you find desirable in its place).

An example: If you want to teach a dog not to lie on your couch, you train the dog to do what you want him to do first.  That is, you teach him to go and lie on his dog-bed.  Then when he does try to go on the couch, you interrupt him and redirect him to the appropriate location (his dog bed) so that climbing onto the couch remains unreinforced.  During the training process you, also use management and prevention: while you are away from the house, you block the dog’s access to the couch, as he would likely choose to lie on the couch – and be reinforced for it – in your absence.

You can interrupt an animal’s undesirable behavior so that he is not self-rewarded without using physical or mental intimidation.  To do this, you can train the animal to respond to an attention cue or recall: something that means, “stop what you are doing and look at me,” or “stop what you are doing and come here immediately.”

A very basic training plan for training an attention noise to interrupt behavior:

First, you can make the noise that you want the animal to respond to (a whistle, or a kissy noise) and then feed a treat. Repeat this until the animal is expectant of a treat after the sound.  Next, make the noise while the animal is looking away from you and AS the animal turns to look at you (for the treat) mark that behavior with either a click (using a clicker) or by saying “yes.”  Once you have repeated this step, you can then add distractions.  Have the animal on a leash so he cannot reach the diversion (perhaps a low-value piece of food on the ground)- make the attention noise, and click or say “yes” and then feed a treat if the animal turns towards you after hearing the sound. If the animal does not turn towards you, do not click or say “yes.”  The animal should not be allowed to reach the distraction that it is interested in.  You can take a step backward from the distraction to make it easier so the animal can succeed.  You can condition this attention noise or a recall to muscle memory in the same way a driver responds to a green light traffic signal (green light means go!).  Once you have created many different scenarios where your animal can disengage in what he is interested in to come towards you and look at you, you can start using the sound to interrupt behaviors that you find undesirable.

Keep in mind that if you ignore the animal and only pay attention to him when he is doing an unwanted behavior, you will be training the animal to do exactly that which you do not want by providing your attention whenever the behavior occurs.  So the GOAL is to reward the animals other responses to the same situations in conjunction with interrupting and preventing the undesirable behaviors.

Example: If your dog steals your underwear and runs around the house with them to get your attention, you have got to reinforce your dog with your attention when he is calm and doing NOTHING.  When your dog is lying at your feet quietly, that is when you will reinforce him with MORE attention than when he runs off with your underwear.

 3) Taking an animal’s emotional state and stress levels into account.

Trainers practicing Progressive Reinforcement read an animal’s body language to the best of their ability for signs of stress or arousal and adjust their training approach accordingly.

Example: Removing a dog that is offering stress signals from a situation where a child is chasing or pestering the dog.

4) Socializing and teaching an animal to cope with his environment using reinforcement.

You can use Progressive Reinforcement Training to socialize and teach an animal to cope with his environment by letting him experience low or non-stressful situations in which the animal is likely to succeed and earn rewards for desirable behavior.  You can then increase difficulty and distractions as the animal succeeds, with the goal of creating a confident, well-adjusted animal.

An example: Teaching an animal to be relaxed and calm while being handled or restrained by using reinforcement.  Pavlov’s dog was trained to have a new emotional response to a bell because the sound of a bell was followed by food. You can train your dog to enjoy handling, very simply put, by touching the dog and then feeding the dog a treat, and increase the invasiveness as the dog remains unstressed by the situation.  If the dog were too shy away, the trainer would have to go back a step to where the dog was comfortable (Classical Conditioning).

Another example: Feeding a dog a reward for remaining relaxed and calm around an exciting situation (perhaps a road with loud traffic), first from a distance and then as the dog succeeds from closer and closer.  If the dog were to become too excited or stressed, the trainer could go back a step in the training process until the dog was successful.

 5) Using a marker to train, whether it be a clicker, some other noise-maker, your voice or touch, or a visual marker.  Or, on the other hand, not using a marker, and instead, for example, reinforcing an animal by feeding a treat directly to his mouth.

A marker can be used to pinpoint behavior.  It tells an animal that what it's doing at that exact moment in time will win him reinforcement.

For example: If a dog sits, the trainer can click as the dog is sitting, and then feed the dog a treat.  Or the trainer can say, “Yes!” in a positive tone as the dog is sitting and then feed the dog a treat or release the dog to get a toy or go out the door.

Reinforcing behavior is also possible without using a marker.  For example, you can feed a dog a treat for looking at another dog to change his emotional response to the other dog (Classical Conditioning).  You can also reinforce your dog for calmly lying around the house or outside by tossing him a treat between his paws while he is not expecting the treat and he will be more likely to repeat the behavior in the future.

 6) Employing humane, effective, respectful training based on the latest scientific evidence.

A commitment to Progressive Reinforcement Training means strictly following all of the above principles – not just in training sessions, but during 100% of the time spent with an animal.

Progressive Reinforcement Training does not mean:

1) The intentional use of physical or psychological intimidation.

Using your voice, touch, body language, a device, or the environment to intimidate an animal for the purpose of continuing, initiating or ending the animal’s behavior.

Examples: staring at an animal, intentionally leaning over him, poking, jerking, shocking, squirting with water, startling with noise, or using your voice in an intimidating way to suppress behavior (saying “no” or “eh!”).

 2) Intentionally disregarding an animal’s stress levels or signals.

Deliberately putting an animal in overly stressful situations in which he cannot cope, rather than exposing the animal in a way that he is under his threshold (the animal can make choices and cope).

Example: Forcing an animal to meet a stranger while the animal is offering a wide range of stress and avoidance signals.

Example:  Dragging an animal across a surface he is frightened of and refuses to cross, instead of teaching the animal to feel confident and calm crossing the surface using Counter Conditioning (rewarding the animal for choosing to take steps across the floor until the animal is confident to cross calmly on his own)

 3) Holding selfish or uncompassionate goals for your training.

Intentionally putting an animal at risk for physical or emotional damage to satisfy one's own interests.

A commitment to Progressive Reinforcement never means deliberately using the intimidation tactics above – never in training sessions, and never during any other time spent with an animal.

Why refrain from using Physical or Psychological Intimidation? 

For scientific, moral, and ethical reasons. Using these forms of conditioning can produce unwanted side effects in addition to the basic trauma they do to an animal.

 The many problems with using physical or psychological intimidation:

1) Without perfect timing, intensity, and consistency, the “training” amounts to nothing more than abuse.
2) The animal learns to avoid the Punisher in order to indulge in undesirable behavior.
3) These techniques can cause irreversible emotional damage to the animal.
4) The punishment can increase stress hormones, arousal, and aggression.
5) Animals can habituate to the punishment – meaning that the intensity of the punishment must keep increasing to have any effect as the animal learns to endure it.
6) You cannot change an animal’s basic emotional response to find children, adults, or other animals (or anything for that matter) reinforcing by using intimidation; you can only suppress the dog’s punished behaviors.
7) Intimidation can cause dogs to hide their warning signs before attempting to bite.
8) Dogs trained with punishment can feel trapped by their handlers, since the decision to leave a ‘stay’ or to leave the handler’s side (to escape from a bothersome child, for example) can cause punishment.  Animals who feel they have no escape tend to bite rather than move away.
9) Intended intimidation can actually increase the behavior you wish to extinguish, as intimidation involves giving a form of attention to an animal.
10) The presence of the Punisher becomes less reinforcing for the animal.  If you punish your dog using intimidation, it is harder to compete with the reinforcement value of other things in the environment.  Your dog will find other stimuli in the environment more reinforcing than you as the dog increasingly associates you with punishment rather than reward.
11) Dogs who have been trained with physical or psychological intimidation do not offer behaviors on their own as readily when asked, making complex behaviors difficult to train
12) Handlers who use intimidation as punishment will punish their animals more easily in the future as punishment is rewarding to the handlers themselves (they get the result they wanted- hitting a dog made it stop barking, so they will be more likely to hit the dog in the future).  In other words, using physical or psychological intimidation causes one’s own behavior patterns to change.

In conclusion, Progressive Reinforcement Training is not a permissive form of training.  It requires providing consequences to all behaviors.  The trainer takes on the role of a benevolent leader and guide using these ethical and scientifically based methods.

Source: http://dogmantics.com/progressive-reinforcement-training-manifesto/