Wednesday, December 17, 2014

NIH Has Spent $100.2 Million on Mindfulness Meditation

NIH Has Spent $100.2 Million on Mindfulness Meditation

Government sees new age meditation technique as solution for disease, stress (Updated)
AP
AP
BY:  
“The advantage of this is that it actually doesn’t cost anything,” said Karen May, a vice president at Google, explaining how her company offers “mindfulness” classes to its employees.
Mindfulness is a New Age kind of meditation that focuses on the present moment “non-judgmentally,” tracing its origins to Buddhism. The growing phenomenon was the subject of a 60 Minutes segment on Sunday, for which May and other fans of the practice were interviewed.
“We’re just asking you to sit and know that you’re sitting,” explained Jon Kabat-Zinn, the founder of mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) and author of the book Wherever You Go, There You Are. “When you’re in the shower next time check and see if you’re in the shower,” he advised viewers.
The segment featured Rep. Tim Ryan (D., Ohio), a so-called “rock star among mindfulness evangelists” who earmarked nearly $1 million to teach mindfulness to preschool students in his district. The $982,000 project provided deep breathing exercises, and “Peace Corners” for kids in Youngstown, Ohio.
Ryan said he practices mindfulness on the House Budget Committee and hosts weekly meditation sessions for members and staff. No Republicans attend.
The congressman “really believes it can change America for the better,” as does the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Contrary to May’s assertion, mindfulness has cost taxpayers a fortune. The Washington Free Beacon analyzed 81 active studies on mindfulness that have cost taxpayers more than $100 million. Included in the total were all studies in which mindfulness is used as a central component in the research.
Ryan’s hometown is not the only place where schools are trying out mindfulness at the taxpayer’s expense.
A “school-based mindfulness and yoga intervention to prevent substance use among disadvantaged, urban youth” is costing $749,751 in Baltimore. Innovation Research and Training, Inc., a social sciences firm in Durham, N.C., is conducting two similar studies for elementary studentsand high schoolers, costing $457,921, and $199,449, respectively.
IRT’s “Master Mind” course involves “mindful breathing, mindful movements, and mindful journeys.”
Mindfulness is proposed as the solution for a wide range of diseases and conditions for nearly every demographic.
$42,676 study is using mindfulness to help women drink less during PMS, and another$1,399,153 grant attempts to use the technique to combat “menstrually related mood disorders.”
$729,352 project is testing the technique as a coping skill to reduce stress for gay men. Obese people can also mindfully meditate to a healthy weight, according to the hypothesis of several NIH grants.
Mindfulness-based stress management is being integrated into a workplace weight loss program in one $359,177 study. A “family-based mindful eating intervention” is targeted at teens.
The $412,216 study argues mindfulness is a “unique and novel scientific approach.”
Yale University is conducting its own family-based mindfulness intervention to prevent obesity, at a cost of $428,873. Another study is promoting healthy dietary and exercise habits in adolescents for$432,541.
$5,668,102 project targets “automatic eating patterns,” while another is testing mindful eating and “mindful walking exercise,” which Anderson Cooper demonstrated during 60 Minutes by walking as slowly as he could. That project has cost taxpayers $12,916,105 since 2004.
Yoga and mindfulness is being used for young adults with irritable bowel syndrome
($690,101), youth with bipolar disorder ($358,489), HIV positive youth ($963,315), and teen moms ($649,093).
Even prisoners are getting into mindfulness. A $905,984 study is creating a “culturally tailored, [mindfulness meditation] MM-based relapse prevention intervention for incarcerated substance users.”
Studies are also questioning whether mindful breathing therapy can reduce problem drinking among college students ($332,232) and risky sexual behavior ($421,705).
A mind-body intervention is being used on pregnant women to reduce their “perceived stress” ($638,682), to “increase meaningful coping” among schizophrenics ($214,830), and impact cocaine addiction ($744,768).
Mindfulness advocates such as Kabat-Zinn believe that technology is causing too many distractions, and he makes everyone turn over their cell phones before attending his retreats. Ironically, the NIH is working on several projects that will deliver mindfulness training through mobile technology.
Three projects developing mindfulness apps to quit smoking have cost $683,474, and a breathing meditation program to reduce blood pressure via smart phones has cost $1,370,503.
Mindfulness is also seen as the solution for major depressive disorder ($137,160), treatment-resistant depression ($3,512,460), residual depressive symptoms ($557,481), social anxiety disorder ($2,419,692), anxiety ($486,099), and generalized anxiety disorder ($812,162).
Mindful meditation is being tested to treat migraines ($1,434,134), as a cure for the common cold ($2,192,599), and a number of diseases, including cardiovascular disease ($5,983,580), sickle cell disease ($32,758), Type 1 Diabetes ($2,343,122), Type 2 Diabetes ($706,244), and high blood pressure ($734,857).
Parenting with mindfulness encourages “nonjudgmental acceptance of self and child,” costing$3,137,880. Family caregivers are the subject of another study trying to make them capitalize on “gratitude, mindfulness, positive reappraisal, personal strengths, and acts of kindness,” for$1,002,347.
One study compares using mindfulness to stress-reduction techniques for mice ($414,907). Mindfulness can also be blended with the Chinese martial art Tai Chi, which is being used for training children with ADHD ($262,216).
Meditating to limit chronic pain is the subject of numerous active studies totaling $7,908,516. Six studies examining neural functions, brain mechanisms, and psychological factors during mindfulness total $5,105,949. Another $1,629,592 is going to projects testing meditation to reduce asthma.
There are dozens more, indicating that the feds are spending at least $100,183,860 on research related to mindfulness.
While the NIH is exploring the possibilities of mindfulness for any and every ailment, Kabat-Zinn says mindfulness is not for everyone.
“It’s not a big should,” he said. “It’s not like, ‘Oh now one more thing that I have to put in my mind, now I have to be mindful.’”
“It’s not a doing at all,” Kabat-Zinn added. “In fact, it’s a being. And being doesn’t take any time.”
UPDATE 2:32 p.m.Due to an editorial arithmetic error, an earlier version of this story incorrectly reported that the total amount of NIH spending on ‘Mindfulness’ research was $92.9 million. The actual number is $100.2 million. We regret the error.
Elizabeth Harrington   Email Full Bio | RSS
Elizabeth Harrington is a staff writer for the Washington Free Beacon. Elizabeth graduated from Temple University in 2010. Prior to joining the Free Beacon, she worked as a staff writer for CNSNews.com. Her email address is elizabeth@freebeacon. Her Twitter handle is @LizWFB.

Monday, December 15, 2014

Ruble Drop

Russia Increases Key Rate Most Since 1998 to Stem Ruble Rout

Photographer: Kirill Kudryavtsev/AFP via Getty Images
Pedestrians walk along a board listing foreign currency rates against the Russian ruble... Read More
Russia’s central bank raised its benchmark interest rate the most since the nation’s 1998 default, making the announcement in the middle of the night in Moscow as policy makers seek to douse investor panic and stem a ruble rout.
The central bank increased the key rate to 17 percent from 10.5 percent effective today, it said in a statement on its website. Policy makers gathered for an unscheduled meeting after a one-point increase on Dec. 11.
“This decision is aimed at limiting substantially increased ruble depreciation risks and inflation risks,” the bank said in the statement.
Russia’s central bank raised interest rates for the sixth time in 2014 after more than $80 billion spent from its reserves failed to stop a 49 percent selloff of the ruble, the world’s worst-performing currency this year. President Vladimir Putin, whose incursion into Ukraine’s Crimea peninsula in March prompted the U.S. and its allies to strike back with sanctions, this month called for “harsh” measures to deter currency speculators.
“While such drastic tightening measures will inflict more pain on the economy, we have been arguing for a while that it is not about preventing recession, but a full-scale financial turmoil caused by the precipitous ruble fall,” said Piotr Matys, a currency strategist at Rabobank International in London.
Photographer: Alexander Zemlianichenko Jr./Bloomberg
Pedestrians walk past an illuminated electronic neon sign displaying U.S. dollar and... Read More

Ruble Drop

The ruble yesterday tumbled past 60 for the first time on record, losing 9.7 percent to 64.4455 a dollar. That extended its plunge this year to 49 percent, which overtook the Ukrainian hryvnia’s drop. Brent, the grade of oil traders look at for pricing Russia’s main export blend, slipped 79 cents, or 1.3 percent, to end the session at $61.06 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange.
Russia derives about 50 percent of its budget revenue from oil and natural gas taxes. As much as a quarter of gross domestic product is linked to the energy industry, Moody’s Investors Service estimated in a Dec. 9 report.
The economy may shrink 4.5 percent to 4.7 percent next year, the most since 2009, if oil averages $60 a barrel under a “stress scenario,” the central bank said yesterday. Net capital outflow may reach $134 billion this year, more than double last year’s total.
To contact the reporters on this story: Olga Tanas in Moscow at otanas@bloomberg.net; Anna Andrianova in Moscow at aandrianova@bloomberg.net
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Balazs Penz at bpenz@bloomberg.net Paul Abelsky

Saturday, December 13, 2014

Paying Down The Debt Is Now Almost Mathematically Impossible

Paying Down The Debt Is Now Almost Mathematically Impossible

Tyler Durden's picture




 
Exactly 199 years ago, in 1815, a “temporary” committee was established in the US Senate called the Committee on Finance and Uniform National Currency.
It was set up to address economic issues and the debt accrued by the US government after the War of 1812.
Of course, because there’s nothing more permanent than a temporary government measure, the committee became a permanent one after just one year.
It soon expanded its role from raising tariffs to having influence over taxation, banking, currency, and appropriations.
In subsequent wars, notably the American Civil War, the Committee was quick to use its powers and introduced the union’s first income tax. They also detached the dollar from gold to help fund the war.
This was all an indication of things to come.
Over the subsequent decades there was a sustained push to finally establish the country’s central bank that will control money and credit, as well as institute a permanent income tax to feed the expanding aspirations of government.
They succeeded in 1913 when the Federal Reserve Act was passed and the 16th Amendment ratified, binding the country in the shackles of central banking and taxation of income.
Over the century that followed, the US has gone from being the biggest creditor in the world to its biggest debtor.
Decades of expanding government programs, waste, endless and costly wars, etc. have racked up such an enormous pile of debt that it has become almost impossible to pay it down.
A lot of folks don’t realize that, since the end of World War II, the US government’s total tax revenue has been almost constant at roughly 17% of GDP.
In other words, even though the actual tax rates themselves rise and fall, the government’s ‘slice’ of the economic pie is almost always the same - 17%.
I’ve worked out a mathematical model which shows that, even with absurd assumptions (7%+ GDP growth for years at a time, low interest rates, etc.), it is simply not feasible for the US government to ‘grow’ its way out.
Default has become the only option. And that could mean a number of things.
They could default on their creditors (other governments like China who loaned money to the US government). But this would spark a global financial and banking crisis.

They could default on the Federal Reserve, which owns trillions of dollars of US debt. But this would create an epic currency crisis for the US dollar.

They could also default on their obligations to their citizens—primarily to future beneficiaries of Social Security (who collectively own trillions of dollars of US debt).

Or they could choose to default on their obligations to every human being alive who holds US dollars… and engineer rampant inflation.
None of these is a good option. And simply put, the US government has reached a point of no return.
I aim to demonstrate this to you in today’s video podcast episode. It’s a very sobering realization.
Join me to see it for yourself:
3.4
Your rating: None Average: 3.4 (30 votes)
 
- advertisements -

Friday, December 5, 2014

Liberalism Is a Hoax

Liberalism Is a Hoax

Column: Public relations in the service of the left
Al Sharpton, Mike Nifong, Jonathan Gruber / AP
Al Sharpton, Mike Nifong, Jonathan Gruber / AP
BY: 
Talk about a dramatic entrance. When the St. Louis Rams took the field last Sunday,several teammates raised their hands, palms out. It was an act of solidarity with Michael Brown, the unarmed black teenager killed last August in a struggle with a white police officer. Moments before his demise, it is said, Brown raised his hands and pleaded: “Don’t shoot.”
Since then “hands up, don’t shoot” has become the rallying cry of protesters and rioters furious that the officer, Darren Wilson, was not indicted by a grand jury. There is just one problem: It is not clear that Brown put his hands up. Nor is it certain that he said, “Don’t shoot.” On the contrary, the evidence released by the grand jury suggests that the fatal incident began when Brown assaulted Wilson.
Indeed, the foundations of the Brown story have been eroding from the moment a St. Louis television station broadcast security video from the convenience store where Michael Brown, prior to his fatal encounter, stole merchandise and assaulted a clerk. It was for example claimed that Brown was shot in the back. The evidence before the grand jury showed that he was not.
Is the movement to “de-militarize” the police that was sparked by Brown’s death therefore based on lies? “Those questions may never be answered,” says The New York Times, which campaigned for the indictment of Officer Wilson and sympathized with the violence and looting that has plagued Ferguson, Missouri, after the grand jury announced its decision.
Well, maybe those questions won’t be answered. What I do know is that the Times would be much more definitive and much more emphatic if the empirical data conformed even in the slightest to its preferred narrative, to its politicized storyline of pacific young black men gunned down needlessly by racist cops. What I do know is that the sensational and electric assertions made by liberals to further their agenda, especially on issues of race and sex, have a habit of being untrue. And it is the recurrence of such factually suspect accounts that raises troubling questions about the relation of liberal myth to political reality. (The case of Eric Garner, in which there is video of the deadly engagement, is different and should not be conflated with the fable of Ferguson.)
Liberal myths propagated to generate outrage and activism, to organize and coordinate and mobilize disparate grievances and conflicting agendas, so often have the same relation to truth, accuracy, and legitimacy as a Bud Light commercial. Marketing is not limited to business. Inside the office buildings of Washington, D.C., are thousands upon thousands of professionals whose livelihoods depend on the fact that there is no better way than a well-run public relations campaign to get you to do what they want. What recent weeks have done is provide several lessons in the suspect nature of such campaigns.
The 2006 Duke Lacrosse case is the paradigmatic example of a liberal rush to judgment when the perceived victim is a minority (in that case, a black woman) and the alleged perpetrator a straight white male. But it is not the sole example.
In 2007, an instructor at Columbia’s Teachers College specializing in racial “micro-aggressions” and under investigation for plagiarism discovered a noose hanging from her office door; when she was fired the following year for academic malfeasance it was widely suspected that she had put the noose there herself. The racist graffiti and Klan sightings that rocked the Oberlin campus in 2013 and served as the basis of an antiracism campaign were later revealed to be a left-wing “joke.” And of course the leader of the Michael Brown protest movement, tax cheat Al Sharpton, was involved in the Tawana Brawley hoax of 1987.
Recently critics have noted serious flaws in the reporting and writing of a Rolling Stone article that purports to describe a violent gang rape in a University of Virginia fraternity house. The article was the basis for the university’s decision to suspend Greek life on campus for the duration of 2014. What if the piece turns out to be largely or wholly false?
Would it even matter? Some liberals are upfront that the factuality of these cases is secondary to their political import. “Actually, in both the case of the UVA rape and in the case of the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri,” says a writer for the New Republic digital media company, “the major takeaway of recent weeks should be that our systems do not work” (emphasis in the original).
What the New Republic means by “our systems” is our systems of power: the institutions through which a free society allocates resources and decision making, chooses priorities, delegates responsibilities and authority. It is the goal of contemporary liberalism to command these institutions—in particular institutions resistant to the left such as police and fire departments, fraternal societies and private clubs, the military and extractive industry—and to alter them according to fashionable theories of equality and justice. The details are unimportant so long as the “takeaway” is communicated, the desired policy achieved.
It is sometimes difficult to understand that, for the left, racism and sexism and prejudice are not ethical categories but political ones. We are not merely talking about bad manners when the subject turns to Michael Brown or UVA or Thomas Piketty. We are talking about power.
“The new elite that seeks to supercede the old one, or merely share its power and honors, does not admit to such intention frankly and openly,” writes Vilfredo Pareto. “Instead it assumes the leadership of all the oppressed, declares that it will pursue not its own good but the good of the many; and it goes to battle, not for the rights of a restricted class but for the rights of almost the entire citizenry.”
Such is the conduct of our new elite, the archons and tribunes of the “coalition of the ascendant,” which proclaims itself the advocate of minority rights, of the poor, of the sick, as it entrenches its power and furthers its self-interest.
For an example of that rising and fabulist elite, look no further than Jonathan Gruber, the MIT economist who in a 2013 speech confided that the passage of Obamacare was due to a “lack of transparency” and “the stupidity of the American people or whatever.” Here is a highly compensated professional, who has received close to $6 million in consulting fees from state and federal government, admitting to like-minded audiences that the Obama administration rigged the process at the Congressional Budget Office, and that the law was written so if states did not establish health exchanges they would not receive Medicaid subsidies (the government is now arguing the opposite before the Supreme Court).
The response? More lies: Nancy Pelosi says she’s never heard of Gruber, and the president and his former secretary of Health and Human Services minimize his role in creating their signature legislation. (Gruber visited the White House, including the Oval Office, more than 20 times.) Gruber hasn’t been delivering speeches over the last few years. He’s been delivering confessions. And his words only embitter the recollection of other Obamacare promises that have been exposed as false: that the law would cut the deficit, that it would lower health care premiums by $2,500, that if you like your plan you can keep your plan.
What are the apocalyptic predictions of climate alarmists but Sorelian myths intended to shape legislation, regulation, and the culture in the radicals’ favor? To merely profess agnosticism on the subject of global warming is to elicit calls for one’s removal from the Washington Post. Yet the “pause” in warming has lasted for more than 15 years, leaving puzzled climate scientists, whose jobs depend on the imminence of crisis, speculating that the heat is hiding somewhere in the ocean. The “Climategate” emails revealed an insular and opaque scientific community sensitive to the political and financial ramifications of contradictory data. The sharknado-like hurricanes that environmentalists predicted as a consequence of global warming have yet to appear. Indeed, no hurricane has made landfall on Florida in nine years.
I gave up predicting the weather the first time I didn’t do my homework in expectation of a snow day and was proven wrong. Nevertheless I recognize the political appeal of climate change, the rhetorical power of a threat to correlate forces, to direct their activity. Not to mention the aromatic whiff of potential economic rewards. Retrofitting an economy for a post-fossil fuel world is a business opportunity for well-connected entrepreneurs such as Elon Musk or the coal baron, radical environmentalist, billionaire, and Democratic mega-donor Tom Steyer, who is on record that the government-subsidized green energy bonanza is above all an opportunity “to make a lot of money.”
So much of contemporary liberalism reeks of a scheme by which already affluent and influential people increase their margins and extend their sway. Liberalism, mind you, in both parties: the Republican elite seems as devoted as their Democratic cousins to the shibboleths of diversity and immigration even as they bemoan the fate of the middle class and seek desperately the votes of white working families.
Just-so stories, extravagant assertions, heated denunciations, empty gestures, moral posturing that increases in intensity the further removed it is from the truth: If the mainstream narration of our ethnic, social, and cultural life is susceptible to error, it is because liberalism is the prevailing disposition of our institutions of higher education, of our media, of our nonprofit and public sectors, and it is therefore cocooned from skepticism and incredulity and independent thought. Sometimes the truth punctures the bubble. And when that happens—and lately it seems to be happening with increasing frequency—liberalism itself goes on trial.
Has the jury reached a verdict? Yes, your honor, it has. We find the defendant guilty. Liberalism is a hoax.