Pobreza, grupos racistas y gobierno de Trump

• day at 7:09 AM

To

• Yahoogroups

Message body

De los 25 Estados más pobres de los US 24 votan siempre como un bloque sólido por los Republicanos y este año, por Trump. 

En el caso del Sur originalmente fueron Republicanos, pero en protesta por la emancipación de los negros se pasaron al Partido Demócrata, Lincoln era Republicano, y alli estuvieron hasta 1964 cuando Lyndon Johnson, un Demócrata,  aprobó los Derechos Civiles de las minorías y entonces en repudio otra vez se pasaron al  Partido Republicano. 

En estos estados las organizaciones religiosas protestantes tienen un poder sobre la población mucho mayor que en los estados más prósperos y con niveles de educación más altos. También abundan en ellos los grupos de supremacistas blancos de ideología nazi, muchos afiliados a la llamada Aryan Nation y a los White Knights del Ku Klux Klan. El  gobierno calcula que más de 800 de estos grupos tienen organización y sitios en los que almacenan armas y municiones.

Estos grupos se dedican principalmente al proselitismo y a la intimidación de las minorías siendo sus objetivos principales los negros, los hispanos, los asiáticos y los judíos y en los últimos años, los musulmanes. Desde la fecha de anuncio de la candidatura de Trump al día de hoy han quemado una decena de iglesias de gente de color.

Anteayer el Presidente Electo Donald Trump anunció que Steve Bannon,  dueño del sitio de opinión Breibart y Director de Alt Right, un movimiento que pretende unificar a todos los grupos racistas será el Jefe de Estrategia en su nuevo gobierno y estará a su lado en la Caa Blanca.

States ranked by per capita income[edit]

All data is from the 2010-2014 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimates.^[5][6]

Rank	State	Per capita income	Median household income	Median family income	Population	Number of households	Number of families
	District of Columbia	$45,877	$71,648	$84,094	658,893	277,378	117,864
1	Connecticut	$39,373	$70,048	$88,819	3,596,677	1,355,817	887,263
2	New Jersey	$37,288	$69,160	$87,951	8,938,175	2,549,336	1,610,581
3	Massachusetts	$36,593	$71,919	$88,419	6,938,608	3,194,844	2,203,675
4	Maryland	$36,338	$73,971	$89,678	5,976,407	2,165,438	1,445,972
5	New Hampshire	$34,691	$66,532	$80,581	1,326,813	519,756	345,901
6	Virginia	$34,052	$64,902	$78,290	8,326,289	3,083,820	2,058,820
7	New York	$33,095	$58,878	$71,115	19,746,227	7,282,398	4,621,954
8	North Dakota	$33,071	$59,029	$75,221	739,482	305,431	187,800
9	Alaska	$33,062	$71,583	$82,307	736,732	249,659	165,015
10	Minnesota	$32,638	$61,481	$77,941	5,457,173	2,129,195	1,369,594
11	Colorado	$32,357	$61,303	$75,405	5,355,866	2,039,592	1,315,283
12	Washington	$31,841	$61,366	$74,193	7,061,530	2,679,601	1,725,099
13	Rhode Island	$30,830	$54,891	$71,212	1,055,173	409,654	257,165
14	Delaware	$30,488	$59,716	$72,594	935,614	349,743	233,000
15	California	$30,441	$61,933	$71,015	38,802,500	12,758,648	8,762,059
16	Illinois	$30,417	$57,444	$71,796	12,880,580	4,772,421	3,099,184
17	Hawaii	$29,736	$69,592	$79,187	1,419,561	450,769	314,151
18	Wyoming	$29,698	$57,055	$72,460	584,153	232,594	149,032
19	Pennsylvania	$29,220	$53,234	$67,876	12,787,209	4,945,972	3,185,054
20	Vermont	$29,178	$54,166	$67,154	626,562	257,229	162,017
	United States	$28,889	$53,657	$65,910	318,857,056	117,259,427	77,152,072
21	Iowa	$28,361	$53,712	$67,771	3,107,126	1,241,471	801,562
22	Wisconsin	$28,213	$52,622	$67,187	5,757,564	2,307,685	1,485,877
23	Maine	$27,978	$49,462	$62,078	1,330,089	549,841	344,585
24	Kansas	$27,870	$52,504	$66,425	2,904,021	1,109,280	728,602
25	Oregon	$27,646	$51,075	$62,670	3,970,239	1,535,511	966,250
26	Nebraska	$27,446	$52,686	$66,120	1,881,503	740,765	480,317
27	Texas	$27,125	$53,035	$62,830	26,956,958	9,277,197	6,407,165
28	South Dakota	$26,959	$50,979	$66,936	853,175	334,475	211,235
29	Ohio	$26,937	$49,308	$62,300	11,594,163	4,593,172	2,923,523
30	Michigan	$26,613	$49,847	$62,143	9,909,877	3,834,574	2,485,159
31	Florida	$26,582	$47,463	$57,212	19,893,297	7,328,046	4,693,411
32	Missouri	$26,126	$48,363	$61,299	6,063,589	2,354,809	1,508,816
33	Montana	$25,989	$46,328	$60,643	1,023,579	410,962	251,176
34	North Carolina	$25,774	$46,556	$57,380	9,943,964	3,790,620	2,492,048
35	Nevada	$25,773	$51,450	$60,824	2,839,099	1,021,519	642,461
36	Arizona	$25,715	$50,068	$59,700	6,731,484	2,428,743	1,579,481
37	Georgia	$25,615	$49,321	$58,885	10,097,343	3,587,521	2,426,392
38	Oklahoma	$25,229	$47,529	$58,710	3,878,051	1,459,759	966,516
39	Indiana	$25,140	$49,446	$60,780	6,596,855	2,502,739	1,657,223
40	Tennessee	$24,922	$44,361	$55,557	6,549,352	2,509,665	1,660,344
41	Utah	$24,877	$60,922	$69,535	2,942,902	918,370	691,495
42	Louisiana	$24,800	$44,555	$56,573	4,649,676	1,718,194	1,112,659
43	South Carolina	$24,596	$45,238	$56,491	4,832,482	1,826,914	1,201,616
44	Idaho	$23,938	$47,861	$58,101	1,634,464	591,587	407,499
45	Kentucky	$23,684	$42,958	$54,776	4,413,457	1,712,094	1,124,586
46	New Mexico	$23,683	$44,803	$54,705	2,085,572	760,916	489,532
47	Alabama	$23,606	$42,830	$53,764	4,849,377	1,841,217	1,232,515
48	Arkansas

Economía de los US entra en expansión

The American economy moved firmly into higher gear last quarter, expanding at an annual rate of 2.9 percent as a result of continuing strength among consumers and better trade figures.

Después de varios años de estabilización, la economía de los US ha entrado en un período de expansión moderada, con el PIB creciendo bastante más que la población. Ha aumentado la producción industrial. El sector tecnológico

de electrónica y aviación en el Sur Oeste y de medicinas y salud en el Nor Este mantienen una demanda altísima de trabajos de alta calificación.

El problema de la mala distribución del ingreso, llamada Desigualdad, resultado de  políticas fiscales que ponen la carga en la clase media más  la reducción de la inversión social sin embargo continúan afectando a gran parte de la población. Se necesita de una amplia reforma fiscal y una reorientación hacia el  gasto social para revertir esta tendencia, lo que aumentaría el crecimiento del PIB.

Afortunadamente ese tipo de medidas están consideradas en el plan de gobierno de la señora Clinton, pero estaría por verse si logra llevarlas a cabo si los Demócratas no obtienen el control del Congreso.

Lo anterior da pie a que politiqueros populistas como Rubio,  Cruz, Ryan y Trump, se hagan nombre señalando el problema pero sin ofrecer solución y más bien amenacen con destruír ese crecimiento y aumentar la desigualdad con propuestas que favorecen a menos de un uno por ciento de la población en detrimento del resto. 

The Commerce Department’s report on the gross domestic product, released Friday, is the next-to-last snapshot of the overall economy before voters go to the polls on Nov. 8. Americans will also get to gauge the economic health of the nation from the monthly unemployment figures to be released on Nov. 4.

The pace of economic growth in the country in the third quarter might not be as fast as many politicians or policy makers would like to see after years of lackluster gains, but Friday’s G.D.P. data does represent a significant improvement from the first half of 2016.

The 1.1 percent growth rate from January to June this year was the slowest first half since 2011, and was well below

Populismo y Antipopulismo, las políticas del engaño

Photo

CreditMerto/Willey

Mr. Trump’s Losing Economic Game Plan

La habilidad o viveza de los políticos tramposos consiste en hacer que la gente o sea los pobres que en todas partes son la mayoría y por lo tanto los que deciden las elecciones voten en contra de sus propios intereses y en favor de los intereses de los mismos políticos o de los que les pagan.

Así en América Latina los politiqueros populistas al estilo de Chávez y los Kirchner lograron convencer a muchos de que están mejor recibiendo dádivas ocasionales del gobierno que desempeñando un trabajo y recibiendo un salario correspondiente a su esfuerzo y en los US los antipopulistas, que son los del extremo opuesto también han logrado convencer a muchos  pobres que los programas sociales que podrían beneficiarlos a ellos son dañinos y hay que eliminarlos.

Así vemos que el Partido Republicano, cuya inmensa mayoría de votantes son personas de bajos ingresos ha conseguido que sus seguidores estén en contra de los programas sociales de los que precisamente dependen y por eso se da el contra sentido de que  los que no tienen para comprarse un seguro médico privado, -que es el 99 % de la población- voten y vociferen en contra de los programas para la salud como el Medicare, el Medicaid y el Obamacare, que los que están jubilados sin otros ingresos voten en contra de mejorar el Seguro Social, que  los que tienen un empleo que no les da para vivir voten en contra de subir el salario mínimo, que los que no tienen con que pagar los 50,000 dólares al año que cuesta una universidad privada y tienen hijos voten a favor de los recortes para la educación y al final terminen votando para que los mega millonarios, que son poquitos y no pasan del 1 x 1000 del total de la población pero reciben la inmensa mayoría del ingreso y poseen casi todo el capital del país paguen menos impuestos que ellos mismos

¿Como consiguen manejar a sus masas para que hagan lo que evidentemente es un harakiri? Bueno, he allí el meollo, la habilidad de los políticos. Los del PR llevan una campaña de décadas explotando el racismo y convenciendo a sus bases, en su inmensa mayoría blancos pobres y sin mucha educación que los programas sociales benefician solo a los negros y a las otras minorías y que ellos nada perderían al recortarlos. La premisa es falsa pues son muchos más los blancos que dependen de esos programas como el MedicAid que los negros, pero el cuento funciona. En otros casos usan la Biblia, el miedo y el fanatismo  para manejarlos con el cuento del pecado, el aborto, la homosexualidad etc... y en otros casos explotan los complejos y las confusiones de pobres que se creen ricos, como el famoso caso de Joe The Plumber, que decía que no podía votar por los Demócratas porque esos le iban a cobrar demasiados impuestos cuando se hiciera millonario con un negocio que algun día iba a poner.

Ahora vemos que el plan económico de Trump, un mega millonario que se presenta como un Robin Hood del Siglo XXI es la esencia de esa misma receta: eliminar totalmente el impuesto de herencia, (La ley ya permite heredar sin impuestos 1.3 Millones),  para beneficiar a aproximadamente 5,000 familias en un país de 360 millones, ponerle impuestos a las importaciones de acero para beneficiar a uno de sus patrocinadores que es acerero y que así podría disparar los precios a su gusto y antojo, parar las energías renovables para beneficiar a otro socio que es fraquero que así podría vender el barril de petróleo otra vez en 100 dólares y bajarle los impuestos al 1 x1000, lo que necesariamente significa más recortes en el área social.

El plan de Trump beneficia directamente a unos 5,000 millonarios, pero como con 5,000 votos no se gana necesita engañar a unos cuantos millones de los pobres que saldrían perjudicados con su programa. Veremos si tiene la habilidad suficiente.

Donald Trump said on Monday that he wanted to usher in “economic renewal,” but most of his proposals would hurt the economy, rack up huge deficits, accelerate climate change and leave the country isolated from the world.

In a speech billed as a blueprint for stimulating growth and creating jobs, Mr. Trump offered a grab bag of ideas that borrow from discredited supply-side economics, the fossil fuel industry’s wish list and “America First” isolationism. He also criticized Hillary Clinton and President Obama for what he called their “job-killing, tax-raising, poverty-inducing” agenda. It was vintage Trump, full of promises of greatness and victories backed by fantastical proposals.

Mr. Trump told the Detroit Economic Club that he would cut taxes to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan was in the White House. He said he would slash the corporate tax rate to 15 percent, arguing that the current statutory 35 percent is one of the highest among developed countries. He did not mention that the average effective corporate tax rate was 18.1 percent in 2015, including state and local taxes, according to the White House and the Treasury Department. He claims he would help workers by getting rid of the estate tax, though repealing it would have almost no effect on working families. Under current law, that tax doesn’t touch 99.8 percent of all estates because it applies only to that portion of an estate that exceeds $5.4 million for an individual or $10.9 million for a married couple.

The big problem with Mr. Trump’s tax ideas is that they would leave a multitrillion-dollar deficit for no benefit. Proponents of supply-side economics argue that cutting tax rates encourages people to work and businesses to invest. But the gains are much more modest than proponents claim because many businesses won’t invest unless demand for their products is growing and many people are not motivated by lower tax rates to work more.

Sign Up for the Opinion Today Newsletter

Every weekday, get thought-provoking commentary from Op-Ed columnists, The Times editorial board and contributing writers from around the world.

On the other hand, significant tax cuts exact very real costs. Mr. Trump’s previous tax plan, released last year, would have reduced federal revenue by $9.5 trillion over 10 years, according to the Tax Policy Center, meaning that Mr. Trump would have to slash government spending or increase borrowing substantially. George W. Bush pushed big tax cuts through Congress in 2001 and 2003 with the promises of strong growth that never materialized.

Mr. Trump also promises to take a machete to existing federal regulations and put a moratorium on new rules. He wants to get rid of environmental policies that he says are driving up the cost of electricity by restricting the production and use of coal and other fossil fuels. In fact, electricity rates, adjusted for inflation, have increased just 2.2 percent, to 12.82 cents per kilowatt-hour, from 2008 to 2015 and are expected to decline to 12.64 cents this year, according to the federalEnergy Information Administration.

Increasing fossil fuel production, and the carbon dioxide emissions associated with it, is exactly the wrong strategy at a time when the world has become increasingly concerned about global warming and its disastrous consequences. But this is of little concern to Mr. Trump, who has dismissed climate change as a hoax and whose “energy revolution,” as he outlined it on Monday, made no mention of carbon-free renewable energy sources.

On trade, Mr. Trump renewed his pledge to kill the Trans-Pacific Partnership, an agreement that Mr. Obama negotiated with 11 countries. Mr. Trump claims he can bring back millions of manufacturing jobs to the United States by slapping retaliatory tariffs against China for manipulating its currency, offering illegal subsidies to its exporters and stealing intellectual property from American companies. But such actions would do nothing to recreate jobs that have been replaced by automation, and companies could move production to other developing countries. Mr. Trump’s earlier pledge to put a 45 percent tariff on all Chinese goods would almost certainly start a trade war that would harm American industries that export goods to China.

Mr. Trump considers himself a businessman, uniquely capable of improving the economy. But this list of misguided and risky proposals would reduce economic growth while showering the rich with tax breaks.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter (@NYTOpinion), and sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter. 

A version of this editorial appears in print on August 9, 2016, on page A22 of the New York edition with the headline: Mr. Trump’s Scary Economic Blueprint. Today's Paper|Subscribe

C'

__._,_.___

---

Posted by: <aranala@bellsouth.net>

---

Reply via web post

•

Reply to sender

•

Reply to group

•

Start a New Topic

•

Messages in this topic (1)

---

Have you tried the highest rated email app?

With 4.5 stars in iTunes, the Yahoo Mail app is the highest rated email app on the market. What are you waiting for? Now you can access all your inboxes (Gmail, Outlook, AOL and more) in one place. Never delete an email again with 1000GB of free cloud storage.

Hay canal para rato

Según los expertos, la ampliación del Canal de Panamá era necesaria debido a que no podía manejar la demanda de barcos. Sin embargo con la consolidación de las líneas navieras, la eliminación de los barcos pequeños y la estabilización del tráfico mundial de contenedores el nuevo canal  podría estar sobrado por las próximas décadas.

El Canal de Panamá pasó de una capacidad de 15 barcos por día  de 4500 contenedores máximo, o sea 67,500 contenedores a 16 barcos de 12,500 contenedores, o sea 200,000 contenedores diarios, un aumento de más del 300 %. 

Estas son cifras máximas de capacidad que no se alcanzan porque no todos los barcos van a su máximo. 

Pero ahora se presentan  factores que antes no estaban presentes:

1.Las líneas navieras se están consolidando. Lo que prepresenta menos barcos, pero con más contenedores cada uno. Igual que ha ocurrido con la consolidación de las  líneas aéreas, y ahora hay menos empresas y  menos vuelos, y los aviones van al  tope.

2. Los centros que estudian el tema de la carga interoceánica, como McKinsey, el Bureau de Carga de Holanda y el economista  Paul Krugman creen que se ha alcanzado si no un pico si una meseta en el transporte mundial de carga y que este no seguirá aumentando. (El abandono del carbón por parte de China tiene un enorme peso en el tema).

3. Los ferrocarriles que recorren los USA a lo ancho. Pueden ofrecer mejores precios, sobre todo ahora que se ha caído el manejo del carbón y del aceite del fracking.

Lo anterior se traduce en que la capacidad del Canal de Panamá ampliado está sobrada para la carga actual y podría seguir  sobrado en las próximas décadas. Los expertos calculan que una vez que las navieras se hayan consolidado y el tamaño promedio de los buques sea de 12000 contenedores el Canal manejará entre 5 y 6 barcos por día o sea a un 40 % de capacidad.

MA CANAL AND PEAK TRADE

Have we reached peak trade?

By David Brancaccio, Katie Long, and Justin Ho

June 23, 2016 | 5:04 AM

Listen to this story

The Port of Balboa, viewed from the Diablo neighborhood, located in the former Panama Canal Zone. - Bill Lancz/Marketplace

Panama opened its new, wider canal on Sunday. This week, we’ve been exploring not just this new and improved lifeline for global commerce, but also its timing, right as world trade is in the doldrums, to use a nautical term.

The way Jorge Quijano, CEO of the Panama Canal Authority told it, there are plenty of trade opportunities his canal is now ready to seize.

"Some of it will come from trying to recover back from what went to the Suez Canal, but also we expect we will see better growth in the United States," Quijano said. "So consumption will go up and we will also see some increases in future years of consumption in Latin America."

Plus, with all this domestic oil and gas production in North America — fracking — there should also be more liquefied natural gas tankersfrom the U.S. Gulf headed through the canal bound for Asia, with each ship paying hundreds of thousands of dollars in tolls to Panama each time it goes through.

Train lines border the Avenida Omar Torrijos Herrera and the Marcos A. Gelabert airport, just east of the Panama Canal. - Justin Ho/Marketplace

Yet, it is also true that all of global trade on planet earth isn’t the booming business it once was, according to the Bureau for Economic for Policy Analysis in the Netherlands, which dutifully tracks these things. Trade was supposed to come back after the great financial collapse of 2008 and 2009 and it really hasn’t.

"For the last five years, global trade has been stagnant," said Susan Lund, a trade expert with the McKinsey Global Institute. "Trade in goods is no longer growing any faster than global GDP, and in fact it’s declining a bit. We’ve never seen this."

Some experts say global trade is cyclical. China is restructuring, Europe is healing. These experts say, just wait, trade growth will come back. But, what if what some call “peak trade” is here to stay?

Sarah Menendez/Marketplace

"Underlying this is something that’s structural and we don’t think will change, and that’s simply that global manufacturing is shifting," Lund said. 

It is changing in part because of disasters like the 2011 Thai floods that disrupted the auto parts and electronics industries around the world. The Fukushima nuclear disaster and the explosion at a cargo storage facility in the Chinese port of Tianjin were other warning signs. In response, some companies looked for ways to make things in fewer places or closer to home.

e

"It may be that we’re entering an era when trade becomes a bit less of a thing," said Paul Krugman, winner of a Nobel Prize in economics for his work analyzing world trade.

Krugman, who now teaches economics at the Graduate Center at City University of New York and writes a regular column for the New York Times, said if trade is less of a thing, it doesn't spell the end of economic growth. It's not something to cheer about either. For those worried about the impact of trade on American workers, slower trade doesn't necessarily promise more jobs at home.

A density map of world trade. - MarineTraffic.com

"Even without this slowdown in global trade, the story of trade displacing jobs was probably mostly a story about the past, not about the future," Krugman said. "A large part of the obviously vulnerable jobs have already gone, in fact we have only a tiny clothing industry in the United States."

 Krugman doesn't see new trade deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership revitalizing trade growth. 

"Trade is almost free already," Krugman said. "The Trans-Pacific Partnership is about property and dispute settlement and not really very much about trade."

While there may not be a lot of new geographical frontiers to open up, there is one huge potential growth area for world trade: digital trade. We'll explore those bits and bytes tomorrow. Find all of our upcoming coverage here.

Salú

Watson and the future of the medical world

There seems to be apprehension and even fear among medical students at the University of Miami as well as other universities in the US about the impact that Watson, (the IBM computer system) will have on the medical profession and specifically on the role of doctors. 

They simply fear that Watson will do to them what simpler computers have already done in other areas like banking, communications, newspaper and magazine printing, architecture, manufacturing, accounting, etc... sectors where millions of jobs that years ago were considered of importance today do not exist. (Imagine how many book keepers would be needed in a bank without computers, how many architects and designers would have been needed to design the Burg Kalifa building in Dubai  if computers had not been used for drawings and calculations).

IBM advertises Watson as a system (see attachment)  that will be capable to assist doctors by making more precise diagnostics by comparing test analysis with a data bank that currently has millions of pages of information for oncology only, and that will then follow up on the patient, receive new data that will then update its repository of information and if needed modify the procedures recommended to that point. But there seems to be more. Even in a language that tries hard to be humble IBM presents Watson to the doctors not only as a useful machine, but as a "colleague".

This past week end at Brewer Park (1) and between sets of tennis,  a medical student at the University of Miami told us that they see it in a different light. They visualize a world where doctors will be basically not needed or play a secondary role as Watson will be able to communicate individually with thousands of patients at the same time using mobile devices, ask them questions, order and review tests and in some case perform the tests itself, analyze the data, prescribe a procedure that is tailored to the patient that takes all available data into consideration including the patients individual genome. Communication will be direct from the patients home or working place with Watson via smart phones  and no clinics, medical appointments or doctors presence will be needed.

It seems that in addition to the announced Watson capabilities, the work of science writers and futurologists is affecting them, as these authors imagine a medical world run by a Watson that has a level of Artificial Intelligency and knowledge  that goes far and beyond the natural intelligence of humans, where surgery ordered by a central computer is performed by another computer robot that will use lasers for minimal invasion and will then reconstruct the damaged flesh and organs so efficiently that recovery will be almost immediate.

In summary they see a world where they graduate with a Medical Diploma that will be basically worthless, with student debt of a quarter million dollars or more and no decent job prospects. Dim.

Offerings

IBM Watson for Oncology

Get oncologists the assistance they need to make more informed treatment decisions. Watson for Oncology analyzes a patient’s medical information against a vast array of data and expertise to provide evidence-based treatment options.

Watch now (02:45)

02:45

IBM Watson and Memorial Sloan Kettering

Watson provides clinicians with evidence-based treatment options based on expert training by MSK physicians.

Whether a community oncology practice or an international hospital, oncologists like all clinicians are struggling to keep up with the large volume of research, medical records, and clinical trials. Watson scales vital knowledge and helps oncologists. Now, with the collaboration between IBM and MSK, Watson for Oncology utilizes world-renowned MSK expertise to evaluate specific details of each unique patient against clinical evidence.

Analyzes the patient’s medical record

Watson for Oncology has an advanced ability to analyze the meaning and context of structured and unstructured data in clinical notes and reports, easily assimilating key patient information written in plain English that may be critical to selecting a treatment pathway.

Identifies potential evidence-based treatment options

By combining attributes from the patient’s file with clinical expertise, external research, and data, Watson for Oncology identifies potential treatment plans for a patient. This means doctors can consider the treatment options provided by Watson when making decisions for individual patients.

Finds and provides supporting evidence from a wide variety of sources

Watson ranks identified treatment options and provides links to supporting evidence for each option to help oncologists as they consider treatment options for their patient. Watson for Oncology draws from an impressive corpus of information, including MSK curated literature and rationales, as well as over 290 medical journals, over 200 textbooks, and 12 million pages of text. Watson for Oncology also supplies for consideration supporting evidence in the form of administration information, as well as warnings and toxicities for each drug.

“It will be like having a capable and knowledgeable ‘colleague’ who can review the current information that relates to my patient… It is fast, thorough, and has the uncanny ability to understand how the available evidence applies to the unique individual I am treating.”

Dr. James Miser, Bumrungrad’s Chief Medical Information Officer

(1)

Brewer Park is a little corner in South Miami with 2 tennis courts and a children´s playground. It is home to 

a dozen ducks, several iguanas, occasionally and Egyptian goose and lately a hen.

Any given week end about 8 or 9 people show up to play doubles, out of a universe of about 30

regulars.  Places of origin include Argentina, Venezuela, Korea, Puerto Rico, Granada, (the little island), Alabama, 

Georgia, New Jersey, California, Italy, Germany, France, Romania, Nicaragua and of course Cuba.

Professions represented include: Lawyers, (very many),  construction, business, engineering, banking, 

diplomacy, teaching, food processing, college students, etc... 

¿Un pre teen con el control de la caja roja?

Este Donald Trump candidato de los Republicanos es realmente un caso patético. Obviamente se trata de un tipo enfermo de vanidad, sumamente inseguro de si mismo y con el ego y el vocabulario de un niño de 5 años.

 Usaba nombres falsos, Barrow, John Miller, etc.. para llamar a los periódicos para hablar bellezas de el mismo, de como era de bonito, de como lo perseguían las mujeres, de como estaba cada vez más rico, etc.... Ahora lo niega, pero los expertos dicen que es su voz, sus mujeres dicen que es su voz y el lenguaje pobre de quinto grado de primaria en un mal alumno que usa el día de hoy es el mismo de ese entonces.

Sería un desgracia nacional que un desajustado mental tenga los códigos de las bombas atómicas al alcance de la mano y el poder de movilizar ejércitos. Sería demasiado riesgoso

además de vergonzoso.  

Pero bueno, peor que GWB, imposible.

Politics

Donald Trump masqueraded as publicist to brag about himself

In a 1991 recording obtained by The Washington Post’s Marc Fisher, a man who claims to be a spokesman for Donald Trump named John Miller tells a People magazine reporter about Trump’s first divorce, his romance with France’s future first lady and his messy breakup with Marla Maples. (Sarah Parnass/The Washington Post)

By Marc Fisher and Will Hobson May 13 at 4:38 PM 

The voice is instantly familiar; the tone, confident, even cocky; the cadence, distinctly Trumpian. The man on the phone vigorously defending Donald Trump says he’s a media spokesman named John Miller, but then he says, “I’m sort of new here,” and “I’m somebody that he knows and I think somebody that he trusts and likes” and even “I’m going to do this a little, part-time, and then, yeah, go on with my life.”

A recording obtained by The Washington Post captures what New York reporters and editors who covered Trump’s early career experienced in the 1970s, ’80s and ’90s: calls from Trump’s Manhattan office that resulted in conversations with “John Miller” or “John Barron” — public-relations men who sound precisely like Trump himself — who indeed are Trump, masquerading as an unusually helpful and boastful advocate for himself, according to the journalists and several of Trump’s top aides.

In 1991, Sue Carswell, a reporter at People magazine, called Trump’s office seeking an interview with the developer. She had just been assigned to cover the soap opera surrounding the end of Trump’s 12-year marriage to Ivana, his budding relationship with the model Marla Maples and his rumored affairs with any number of celebrities who regularly appeared on the gossip pages of the New York newspapers.

Within five minutes, Carswell got a return call from Trump’s publicist, a man named John Miller, who immediately jumped into a startlingly frank and detailed explanation of why Trump dumped Maples for the Italian model Carla Bruni. “He really didn’t want to make a commitment,” Miller said. “He’s coming out of a marriage, and he’s starting to do tremendously well financially.”

Miller turned out to be a remarkably forthcoming source — a spokesman with rare insight into the private thoughts and feelings of his client. “Have you met him?” Miller asked the reporter. “He’s a good guy, and he’s not going to hurt anybody. . . . He treated his wife well and . . . he will treat Marla well.”

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump speaks in his office at Trump Tower. (Mary Altaffer/AP)

[Read the full text of the ‘John Miller’ interview]

Some reporters found the calls from Miller or Barron disturbing or even creepy; others thought they were just examples of Trump being playful. Today, as the presumptive Republican nominee for president faces questions about his attitudes toward women, what stands out to some who received those calls is Trump’s characterization of women who he portrayed as drawn to him sexually.

“Actresses,” Miller said in the call to Carswell, “just call to see if they can go out with him and things.” Madonna “wanted to go out with him.” And Trump’s alter ego boasted that in addition to living with Maples, Trump had “three other girlfriends.”

Miller was consistent about referring to Trump as “he,” but at one point, when asked how important Bruni was in Trump’s busy love life, the spokesman said, “I think it’s somebody that — you know, she’s beautiful. I saw her once, quickly, and beautiful . . . ” and then he quickly pivoted back into talking about Trump — then a 44-year-old father of three — in the third person.

In 1990, Trump testified in a court case that “I believe on occasion I used that name.”

In a phone call to NBC’s “Today” program Friday morning after this article appeared online, Trump denied that he was John Miller. “No, I don’t think it — I don’t know anything about it. You’re telling me about it for the first time and it doesn’t sound like my voice at all,” he said. “I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice and then you can imagine that, and this sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams — doesn’t sound like me.” Later, he was more definitive: “It was not me on the phone. And it doesn’t sound like me on the phone, I will tell you that, and it was not me on the phone. And when was this? Twenty-five years ago?”

Then, Friday afternoon, Washington Post reporters who were 44 minutes into a phone interview with Trump about his finances asked him a question about Miller: “Did you ever employ someone named John Miller as a spokesperson?”