Centers for Disease Control maps 'most distinctive' causes of death by state

© CDC

    

Heart disease and cancer can be easily branded as the two most notorious and common killers in the United States. However, there are other causes of death which are less common with the nation as a whole but are actually much more typical in specific states.

A new color-coded map has been created by the CDC in order to categorize the most likely causes of death for each of the 50 U.S. states.

According to Francis Boscoe, a research scientist at New York State Cancer Registry the most distinctive causes of death in majority of cases is not so surprising. In several northern states, including Maine, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming the flu is considered as the most distinctive cause of death. In Alaska and Idaho the most distinctive causes of death is considered to be plane crashes or boat accidents. In mining states such as Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky pneumoconiosis, a group of lung diseases caused by inhaling dusts, are branded as the most distinctive causes of death.

There were however, some unexpected findings. In New Jersey, Sepsis is categorized as the most distinctive cause of death and deaths by legal intervention. Surprisingly the most distinctive cause of death in New Mexico, Nevada and Oregon is that caused by law enforcement officers, excluding legal executions.

In order to determine the most distinctive causes of death for each individual state, the researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention initiated a list of 113 causes of death.

Then, the researchers began determining the estimate of death from each cause, for each state and divided this by the rate of death from that particular cause in the United States as a whole. This theory allowed the researchers to observe which of the states had higher rates of death from certain causes than the rest of the United States.

In Alaska, for instance the rate of death for plane crashes and boat accidents was about 4 deaths per 100,000 people; whereas the national rate is 0.6 deaths per 100,000 people. This essentially proves beyond reasonable doubt that deaths from plane crashes or boat accidents are seven times more likely in Alaska than entire United States. According to Boscoe, this "distinctive" cause of death makes sense, since some parts of Alaska are accessible only by boat or plane.

In Florida, HIV was identified as the most distinctive cause of death, where about 15,000 people died from the disease. But in numerous cases, the most distinctive cause of death was still quite uncommon. Although Syphilis caused only 22 deaths in Louisiana, it is considered as the most distinctive cause of death in that particular state.

© CDC

    

Read More

79 members of Congress have been in office for at least 20 years

    

No wonder Washington never changes - 79 members of Congress have been there since Bill Clinton's first term in the White House. This list includes names such as Reid, Feinstein, McConnell, McCain, Pelosi, Boehner, Rangel and Boxer.

In this article, I am going to share with you a complete list of the members of Congress that have been "serving" us for at least 20 years. They believe that they are "serving" us well, but without a doubt most Americans very much wish that true "change" would come to Washington. In fact, right now Congress has a 15 percent approval rating with the American people, and that approval rating has been consistently below 20 percent since mid-2011. So of course we took advantage of the 2014 mid-term election to dump as many of those Congress critters out of office as we possibly could, right? Wrong. Sadly, incumbents were re-elected at a 95 percent rate in 2014. This just shows how broken and how corrupt our system has become. The American people absolutely hate the job that Congress is doing, and yet the same clowns just keep getting sent back to Washington again and again.

Our founders never intended for service in Congress to become a career, but that is precisely what it has become for many of our "public servants". As of this moment, there are 79 members of Congress that have been in office for at least 20 years, and there are 16 members of Congress that have been in office for at least 30 years.

No wonder so many Americans are advocating term limits these days. When there are dozens of members of Congress that know that they are going to be sent back to Washington over and over again no matter how the American people feel about things, that can cause them to become extremely callous toward the will of the people. Instead, often these politicians become increasingly responsive to the needs of their big donors, because it takes big money to win campaign after campaign. I am sure that if George Washington, John Adams and Thomas Jefferson were running around today, they would be absolutely disgusted by how our system has evolved.

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office...

Orrin G. Hatch, Utah Jan. 4, 1977
Thad Cochran, Miss. Dec. 27, 1978
Charles E. Grassley, Iowa Jan. 5, 1981
Mitch McConnell, Ky. Jan. 3, 1985
Richard C. Shelby, Ala. Jan. 6, 1987
John McCain, Ariz. Jan. 6, 1987
James M. Inhofe, Okla. Nov. 30, 1994

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. Senate that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office...

Patrick J. Leahy, Vt. Jan. 14, 1975
Barbara A. Mikulski, Md. Jan. 6, 1987
Harry Reid, Nev. Jan. 6, 1987
Dianne Feinstein, Calif. Nov. 4, 1992
Barbara Boxer, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Patty Murray, Wash. Jan. 5, 1993

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office...

Don Young, Alaska March 6, 1973
Jim Sensenbrenner, Wis. Jan. 15, 1979
Harold Rogers, Ky. Jan. 5, 1981
Christopher H. Smith, N.J. Jan. 5, 1981
Joe L. Barton, Texas Jan. 3, 1985
Lamar Smith, Texas Jan. 6, 1987
Fred Upton, Mich. Jan. 6, 1987
John J. Duncan Jr., Tenn. Nov. 8, 1988
Dana Rohrabacher, Calif. Jan. 3, 1989
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Fla. Aug. 29, 1989
John A. Boehner, Ohio Jan. 3, 1991
Sam Johnson, Texas May 18, 1991
Ken Calvert, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Robert W. Goodlatte, Va. Jan. 5, 1993
Peter T. King, N.Y. Jan. 5, 1993
John L. Mica, Fla. Jan. 5, 1993
Ed Royce, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Frank D. Lucas, Okla. May 10, 1994
Rodney Frelinghuysen, N.J. Jan. 4, 1995
Walter B. Jones, N.C. Jan. 4, 1995
Frank A. LoBiondo, N.J. Jan. 4, 1995
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jan. 4, 1995
Edward Whitfield, Ky. Jan. 4, 1995

The following is a list from rollcall.com of the Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives that have served for at least 20 years and the dates when they first took office...

John Conyers Jr., Mich. Jan. 4, 1965
Charles B. Rangel, N.Y. Jan. 21, 1971
Steny H. Hoyer, Md. May 19, 1981
Marcy Kaptur, Ohio Jan. 3, 1983
Sander M. Levin, Mich. Jan. 3, 1983
Peter J. Visclosky, Ind. Jan. 3, 1985
Peter A. DeFazio, Ore. Jan. 6, 1987
John Lewis, Ga. Jan. 6, 1987
Louise M. Slaughter, N.Y. Jan. 6, 1987
Nancy Pelosi, Calif. June 2, 1987
Frank Pallone Jr., N.J. Nov. 8, 1988
Eliot L. Engel, N.Y. Jan. 3, 1989
Nita M. Lowey, N.Y. Jan. 3, 1989
Jim McDermott, Wash. Jan. 3, 1989
Richard E. Neal, Mass. Jan. 3, 1989
José E. Serrano, N.Y. March 20, 1990
David E. Price, N.C. Jan. 7, 1997 Also served 1987-95
Rosa DeLauro, Conn. Jan. 3, 1991
Collin C. Peterson, Minn. Jan. 3, 1991
Maxine Waters, Calif. Jan. 3, 1991
Jerrold Nadler, N.Y. Nov. 3, 1992
Jim Cooper, Tenn. Jan. 7, 2003 Also served 1983-95
Xavier Becerra, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Sanford D. Bishop Jr., Ga. Jan. 5, 1993
Corrine Brown, Fla. Jan. 5, 1993
James E. Clyburn, S.C. Jan. 5, 1993
Anna G. Eshoo, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Gene Green, Texas Jan. 5, 1993
Luis V. Gutierrez, Ill. Jan. 5, 1993
Alcee L. Hastings, Fla. Jan. 5, 1993
Eddie Bernice Johnson, Texas Jan. 5, 1993
Carolyn B. Maloney, N.Y. Jan. 5, 1993
Lucille Roybal-Allard, Calif. Jan. 5, 1993
Bobby L. Rush, Ill. Jan. 5, 1993
Robert C. Scott, Va. Jan. 5, 1993
Nydia M. Velázquez, N.Y. Jan. 5, 1993
Bennie Thompson, Miss. April 13, 1993
Sam Farr, Calif. June 8, 1993
Lloyd Doggett, Texas Jan. 4, 1995
Mike Doyle, Pa. Jan. 4, 1995
Chaka Fattah, Pa. Jan. 4, 1995
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Jan. 4, 1995
Zoe Lofgren, Calif. Jan. 4, 1995

As you looked over those lists, you probably noticed that they contain many of the members of Congress that Americans complain about the most.

Unfortunately, because the vast majority of these individuals come from states or congressional districts that are basically a lock to vote a certain way, there is very little hope of ever removing them. That means that most of these Congress critters are going to get to keep coming back for as long as they want.

No matter which political party you prefer, this should greatly disturb you.

Our founders certainly never intended for a permanent class of elitists to rule over us.

But that is what we have.

We are supposed to have a government of the people, by the people and for the people, but instead we have a government of the elite, by the elite and for the elite. Most people do not realize this, but today most members of Congress are actually millionaires. The disconnect between members of Congress and average Americans has never been greater than it is right now, and I think that is a very troubling sign for the future of this nation.

So is there a solution to this problem?

Read More

JP Morgan warns of liquidity crunch; U.S. farmers in 'dire straits'

© Worldpropertyjournal.com

    

Despite the government's 'advice' to young debt-laden students, the tragedy of the American farmer continues with worryingly pessimistic views on the future of the industry. With farmland prices falling for the first time in almost 30 years, credit conditions are weakening dramatically and the Kansas City Fed warns that persistently low crop prices and high input costs reduced profit margins and increased concerns about future loan repayment capacity, and JPMorgan concludes, the industry is currently in dire straits with the potential for a liquidity crunch for farmers into 2016.

Not so long ago, U.S. farmland - whose prices were until recently rising exponentially - was considered by many to be the next asset bubble. Then, almost overnight, the fairytale ended, and as reported in February, U.S. farmland saw its first price drop since 1986.

© Zerohedge

    

Looking ahead, very few bankers expect price appreciation and more than a quarter of survey respondents expect cropland values to decline further in the next three months.

© Zerohedge

    

And now, The Kansas City Fed warns that Agricultural credit conditions are worsening rapidly...

Credit conditions in the Federal Reserve's Tenth District weakened as farm income declined further in the first quarter of 2015. Persistently low crop prices and high input costs reduced profit margins and increased concerns about future loan repayment capacity. Funds were available to meet historically high loan demand, but loan repayment rates dropped considerably.Although profit margins in the livestock industry have remained stable, most bankers do not expect farm income or credit conditions to improve in the next three months.

On a more regional level, farm income declined in all District states except Oklahoma. In Oklahoma, farm income has steadily improved over the last three years due to revenue from mineral rights and cattle production but remained unchanged in the first quarter of 2015 .

© Zerohedge

    

Strains on the farm economy have begun to affect the overall economic outlook in some states. Through 2014, growth in per capita personal income was notably smaller in states most heavily concentrated in crop production.

Ninety-four percent of survey respondents expect farm income to remain the same or decline further in the next three months. Additional declines in farm income could continue to create economic challenges in states heavily dependent on crops.

Loan Demand is surging... (to replace income's collapse or roll old debt)

The continued decline in farm income boosted demand for new loans as well as renewals and extensions on existing loans. During years of historically high farm income, some farmers were able to self-finance. However, as working capital has declined due to high production costs and lower crop revenues, more producers have needed external financing to pay for operating expenses and capital purchases. Loan demand was also supported by livestock loans on feeder cattle, which still command historically high prices. In fact, demand for non-real estate farm loans increased across all District states in the first quarter and is expected to remain elevated over the next three months.

If expectations are met, the survey measure of loan demand would be the highest since the survey began in 1980.

© Zerohedge

    

And paying back loans is slumping...

Alongside reduced farm income and higher loan demand, loan repayment rates have declined significantly.

Bankers also expressed concerns over increased debt-to-asset ratios, especially for younger farmers with high borrowing needs.

As The Kansas City Fed concludes...

Low crop prices placed added stress on net farm incomes and contributed to weaker credit conditions in the first quarter. As farm incomes fell, cropland values moderated and more producers depended on financing to cover operating expenses.

Sufficient funds were available to meet increases in loan demand, but declines in repayment rates as well as slight increases in carry-over debt, collateral requirements and loan renewals and extensions suggest that credit quality may become more of a concern moving forward.

All of which is summed up ominously by JPMorgan, writing in a downgrade not for Deere, that...

We recently spent some time in the Midwest meeting various agriculture industry participants including dealers, farmers and industry experts. We believe it was clear from what we heard that the industry is currently in dire straits with the potential for a liquidity crunch for farmers into 2016.

So that is why the government is pushing the young debt-laden student serfs into farming... to 'create' some demand...

Read More

Sen. Warren releases 'Broken Promises' report in face of Obama's TPP vows

© Reuters/Jonathan Ernst

    

One of the biggest critics of the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal being touted by the White House raises questions about the Obama administration's promises for the TPP in a new report.

The 15-page "Broken Promises" study put out by the Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts) on Monday this week contains what the lawmaker's office describes as highlights from "two decades of failed enforcement by the United States of labor and environmental standards" related to past free trade agreements.

US President Barack Obama has hailed the 12-nation TPP agreement currently being discussed as a means of enhancing the economy both at home and abroad by establishing new relationships among Pacific Ring nations. Opponents of the trade deal have taken aim at the secrecy with which negotiations have so far been conducted, as well as whether or not the TPP will actually live up to the administration's promises, or spawn results similar to that of the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA.

According to Sen. Warren's analysis, previous examples suggest that the TPP has a good chance of contributing to further abuses in workplaces abroad if the trade deal is approved.

Trade deal supporters have said again & again they would protect workers. The facts show decades of broken promises: http://bit.ly/1ec4H5m— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) May 18, 2015

"Supporters of past trade agreements have said again and again that these deals would include strong protections for workers, but assurances without strong enforcement are just empty promises," Warren said. "The facts show that, despite all the promises, these trade deals were just another tool to tilt the playing field in further of multinational corporations and against working families."

"We have two decades of experience with free trade agreements under both Democratic and Republican Presidents. Supporters of these agreements have always promised that they contain tough standards to protect workers," the report reads. "The rhetoric has not matched the reality."

For the president's part, Obama said the TPP will be "the most progressive trade bill in history" and will have "higher labor standards, higher environmental standards" and "new tools to hold countries accountable." According to the New England senator, however, similar statements made in the wake of NAFTA have routinely failed to be realized.

Earlier this month, Pres. Obama appeared at the headquarters of footwear giant Nike to endorse the TPP. Nike's top-brass says passage of the trade deal would create thousands of new domestic jobs for the corporation, and the White House says rules laid out within the agreement would force foreign partners to implement new rules and regulations. In Vietnam, for example, where around one-third of Nike's products are produced, workers would be guaranteed a minimum wage and the right to form unions for the first time ever.

"That would make a difference. That helps to level the playing field and it would be good for the workers in Vietnam even as it helps make sure that they're not undercutting competition here in the United States," Obama said.

The Senator Warren responds bluntly in the report that "The United States does not enforce the labor protections in its trade agreement." According to past analyses cited in her report, 11 of the 20 countries that the US has entered into free trade agreement with are linked to "significant problems with use of child labor or other labor-related human rights abuses,"

The White House has asked Congress to give the Obama administration fast-track authority to tentatively iron out any potential trade agreements on its own before asking Capitol Hill lawmakers to either accept or reject a proposal, but that effort stalled after a vote in the Senate last week ended with that request being shot down.

Monday's release marks only the latest installment in a standoff between Sen. Warren and the White House over the TPP. Warren wrote the Office of the US Trade Representative last year saying "We cannot afford a trade deal that undermines the government's ability to protect the American economy," and has remained an adamant critic of the proposal in the months since.

Obama recently responded to Warren's concerns by saying, "The truth of the matter is that Elizabeth is, you know, a politician like everybody else" and that "her arguments don't stand the test of fact and scrutiny."

Read More

Another moronic plot to damage Russia as the US strains to hold on to world dominance

The Empire is failing.

    

"The U.S. must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.....We must, however, be mindful that...Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States."

-- The Wolfowitz Doctrine, the original version of the Defense Planning Guidance, authored by Under Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, leaked to the New York Times on March 7, 1992

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia...and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained."
-- The Grand Chessboard - American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, page 30

The Laussanne negotiations between Iran and the so called P5+1 group (the United States, Russia, China, France, Britain, and Germany) have nothing to do with nuclear proliferation. They are, in fact, another attempt to weaken and isolate Russia by easing sanctions, thus allowing Iranian gas to replace Russian gas in Europe. Laussanne shows that Washington still thinks that the greatest threat to its dominance is the further economic integration of Russia and Europe, a massive two-continent free trade zone from Lisbon to Vladivostok that would eventually dwarf dwindling US GDP while decisively shifting the balance of global power to Asia. To counter that threat, the Obama administration toppled the elected government of Ukraine in a violent coup, launched a speculative attack on the ruble, forced down global oil prices, and is presently arming and training neo-Nazi extremists in the Ukrainian army. Washington has done everything in its power to undermine relations between the EU and Russia risking even nuclear war in its effort to separate the natural trading partners and to strategically situate itself in a location where it can control the flow of vital resources from East to West.

Laussanne was about strategic priorities not nukes. The Obama administration realizes that if it can't find an alternate source of gas for Europe, then its blockade of Russia will fail and the EU-Russia alliance will grow stronger. And if the EU-Russia alliance grows stronger, then US attempts to extend its tentacles into Asia and become a major player in the world's most prosperous region will also fail leaving Washington to face a dismal future in which the steady erosion of its power and prestige is a near certainty. This is from an article titled "Removing sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan":

"If Washington removes energy sanctions on Iran...then a new geopolitical configuration will emerge in the region. Connecting with Nabucco will be enough for Iran to fully supply Europe with gas...

Iran takes the floor with inexhaustible oil and gas reserves and as a key transit country. Iran disposes of the 10% of the reported global oil reserves and is the second country in the world after Russia with its natural gas reserves (15%). The official representatives of Iran do not hide that they strive to enter the European market of oil and gas, as in the olden days. Let's remember that the deputy Minister of Oil in Iran, Ali Majedi, offered to revive project of Nabucco pipeline during his European tour and said that his country is ready to supply gas to Europe through it...

"Some months earlier the same Ali Majedi reported sensational news: 'two invited European delegations' discussed the potential routes of Iranian gas supply to Europe," the article reads." ... It is also noted that the West quite materially reacted to the possibility of the Iranian gas to join Nabucco." (Removing sanctions against Iran to have unfavorable influence on Turkey and Azerbaijan, Panorama)

So, is this the plan, to provide "energy security" to Europe by replacing Russian gas with Iranian gas?

"After almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, IAEA inspectors have yet to find any indication that Iran has — or ever had — a nuclear weapons program." -- Gordon Prather, nuclear weapons physicist

    

It sure looks like it. But that suggests that the sanctions really had nothing to do with Iran's fictitious nuclear weapons program but were merely used to humiliate Iran while keeping as much of its oil and gas offline until western-backed multinationals could get their greasy mitts on it.

Indeed, that's exactly how the sanctions were used even though the nuclear issue was a transparent fake from the get go. Get a load of this from the New York Times:

"Recent assessments by American spy agencies are broadly consistent with a 2007 intelligence finding that concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear weapons program years earlier, according to current and former American officials. The officials said that assessment was largely reaffirmed in a 2010 National Intelligence Estimate, and that it remains the consensus view of America's 16 intelligence agencies." (U.S. Agencies See No Move by Iran to Build a Bomb, James Risen, New York Times, February 24, 2012)

See? The entire US intelligence establishment has been saying the same thing from the onset: No Iranian nukes. Nor has Iran ever been caught diverting nuclear fuel to other purposes. Never. Also, as nuclear weapons physicist, Gordon Prather stated many times before his death, "After almost three years of go-anywhere see-anything interview-anyone inspections, IAEA inspectors have yet to find any indication that Iran has — or ever had — a nuclear weapons program."

The inspectors were on the ground for three freaking years. They interviewed everyone and went wherever they wanted. They searched every cave and hideaway, every nook and cranny, and they found nothing.

Get it? No nukes, not now, not ever. Period.

The case against Iran is built on propaganda, brainwashing and bullshit, in that order. But, still, that doesn't tell us why the US is suddenly changing course. For that, we turn to an article from The Brookings Institute titled "Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter" which sums it up quite well. Here's a clip:

"At heart, this is a fight over what to do about Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the Middle East and the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies, particularly Israel and Saudi Arabia. Proponents of the deal believe that the best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to seek to integrate Iran into the regional order, even while remaining wary of its ambitions. A nuclear deal is an important first step in that regard, but its details matter little because the ultimate goal is to change Iranian intentions rather destroy Iranian capability." (Why the details of the Iran deal don't matter, Brookings)

Notice how carefully the author avoids mentioning Israel by name although he alludes to "the threat that Iranian geopolitical ambitions pose to U.S. allies". Does he think he's talking to idiots?

But his point is well taken; the real issue is not "Iranian capability", but "Iran's challenge to U.S. leadership in the Middle East". In other words, the nuclear issue is baloney. What Washington doesn't like is that Iran has an independent foreign policy that conflicts with the US goal of controlling the Middle East. That's what's really going on. Washington wants a compliant Iran that clicks its heals and does what its told.

The problem is, the strategy hasn't worked and now the US is embroiled in a confrontation with Moscow that is a higher priority than the Middle East project. (The split between US elites on this matter has been interesting to watch, with the Obama-Brzezinski crowd on one side and the McCain-neocon crowd on the other.) This is why the author thinks that easing sanctions and integrating Iran into the predominantly US system would be the preferable remedy for at least the short term.

Repeat: "The best way for the United States to deal with the Iranian regional challenge is to integrate Iran into the regional order." In other words, if you can't beat 'em, then join 'em. Iran is going to be given enough freedom to fulfill its role within the imperial order, that is, to provide gas to Europe in order to inflict more economic pain on Russia. Isn't that what's going on?

But what effect will that have on Iran-Russia relations? Will it poison the well and turn one ally against the other?

© Russia today
Kazakhstan’s President Nursultan Nazarbayev has suggested establishing a free trade zone involving Russia, Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan; all bordering the Caspian Sea and oil-rich.

    

Probably not, mainly because the ties between Iran and Russia are growing stronger by the day. Check this out from the Unz Review by Philip Giraldi:

"Moscow and Tehran are moving towards a de-facto strategic partnership, which can be easily seen by the two groundbreaking announcements from earlier this week. It's now been confirmed by the Russian government that the rumored oil-for-goods program between Russia and Iran is actually a real policy that's already been implemented, showing that Moscow has wasted no time in trying to court the Iranian market after the proto-deal was agreed to a week earlier. Providing goods in exchange for resources is a strategic decision that creates valuable return customers in Iran, who will then be in need of maintenance and spare parts for their products. It's also a sign of deep friendship between the two Caspian neighbors and sets the groundwork for the tentative North-South economic corridor between Russia and India via Iran." (A Shifting Narrative on Iran, Unz Review)

But here's the glitch: Iran can't just turn on the spigot and start pumping gas to Europe. It doesn't work that way. It's going to take massive pipeline and infrastructure upgrades that could take years to develop. That means there will be plenty of hefty contracts awarded to friends of Tehran - mostly Russian and Chinese - who will perform their tasks without interfering in domestic politics. Check this out from Pepe Escobar:

"Russia and China are deeply committed to integrating Iran into their Eurasian vision. Iran may finally be admitted as a full member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) at the upcoming summer summit in Russia. That implies a full-fledged security/commercial/political partnership involving Russia, China, Iran and most Central Asian 'stans'.

Iran is already a founding member of the Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB); that means financing for an array of New Silk Road-related projects bound to benefit the Iranian economy. AIIB funding will certainly merge with loans and other assistance for infrastructure development related to the Chinese-established Silk Road Fund..." (Russia, China, Iran: In sync, Pepe Escobar, Russia Today)

Get the picture? Eurasian integration is already done-deal and there's nothing the US can do to stop it.

Washington needs to rethink its approach. Stop the meddling and antagonism, rebuild relations through trade and mutual trust, and accept the inevitability of imperial decline.

Asia's star is rising just as America's is setting. Deal with it.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

This entry passed through the Full-Text RSS service - if this is your content and you're reading it on someone else's site, please read the FAQ at http://bit.ly/1xcsdoI.

Read More

Police shoot German pensioner who refused to be admitted to a clinic

© DPA
A police forensics team gathering evidence after the shooting.

    

Police in Hesse killed a 74-year-old pensioner on Sunday in a gun battle which erupted after the man refused to be admitted to a clinic.

A special response team (SEK) had arrived at the man's home in Rodgau, near Frankfurt, just before 7am after beat officers were unable to defuse the situation.

The pensioner, who had a valid firearms license, threatened to use violence if anyone tried to force him to leave against his will, investigators said.

After the SEK arrived, he opened fire and refused to lay down his weapon after the initial shots.

Officers returned fire after he resumed shooting, fatally wounding him and leaving him dead on the ground outside the house.

The floor was left strewn with cartridge casings and there were several bullet holes in the garage door.

Police forensics teams locked down the area through the afternoon as they gathered evidence. It is not yet clear why the man was to be admitted to the clinic.

Read More

Spanish gang arrested trying to buy kidney of immigrant

© Shutterstock
A photo of someone on the operating table.

    

Five people have been arrested for attempting to buy the organ from a penniless immigrant for €6,000. It was to transplant into the son of a criminal gang boss suffering from kidney disease.

Spanish police said Monday they had arrested five people accused of trying to buy a kidney from an impoverished immigrant for €6,000 ($6,835).

Officers in Spain made the arrests working in collaboration with others in Germany and Belgium, a brief police statement said. It did not say exactly when the arrests were made.

"The immigrant tried to pull out of the deal while he was undergoing clinical tests, so he was kidnapped, beaten and threatened with death to make him go ahead," the statement said. The person wanting to buy the organ was the leader of a criminal gang specialized in robberies, who wanted it for a son suffering from kidney disease.

Police chiefs and the head of Spain's National Transplant Organisation were due to give more details at a press conference later on Monday. In March, 14 European nations in Spain signed the first ever international treaty to fight human organ trafficking.

The business generates $1.2 billion (1.1 billion euros) in illegal profits worldwide every year, according to the Council of Europe, which drew up the treaty. In January 2014, Spanish police arrested a rich 62-year-old Lebanese man suspected of trying to buy the healthy liver of a Romanian.

Last year Spain carried out more organ transplants per capita than any other nation in the world.

Read More