Author Archives: dig1iti43

Critics call Mayor Rahm’s plans to light up Chicago at night a dim idea

Critics call Mayor Rahm’s plans to light up Chicago at night a dim idea


Not bright enough for the mayor.

Chicago has some of the most famous architecture in the world. But the intricacies of its imposing towers shine best when the sun is shining. So Mayor Rahm Emanuel has an idea: lights. Lots and lots of lights. Chicago will launch a worldwide hunt for a firm to design a lighting regime to illuminate the city at night — part of an effort to boost tourism.

But is that wise? Environmentally, it’s a tough case to make.

Birds smash into building facades in the dead of night all the time — and lights are thought to be to blame. Through the Lights Out program, which asks building owners to dim or extinguish as many lights as possible, Chicago has been a trailblazer in dimming nocturnal streetscapes to help protect migratory birds.

And then there’s that whole global warming thing. Drew Carhart of the Illinois Coalition for Responsible Outdoor Lighting, which battles against light pollution, points out that Paris, which Chicago is seeking to emulate, is actually catching up with the times and moving away from its City of Light moniker. The Chicago Sun-Times reports:

Emanuel was ridiculed Friday for suggesting that Chicago be turned into “North America’s city of lights” at the same time that Paris, the global “City of Light,” has toned it down.

Last year, the French Environment Ministry ordered Paris buildings and storefronts to turn off artificial lights between the hours of 1 a.m. and 7 a.m. …

“It’s somewhat ironic that the mayor wants to turn Chicago into the Paris of North America when the Paris of France has finally figured out that creating lots of extra light to dump into the night is both wasteful of money and energy and really bad for the environment,” Carhart wrote in an email to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Leaving Chicago’s whizz-bang new lights on after tourists are sound asleep wouldn’t be the brightest of ideas. And here’s hoping that whichever firm wins the city contract can at least figure out how to use LEDs and other low-energy sources of light to illuminate the city.

Environmental group takes dim view of Emanuel’s night light plan, Chicago Sun-Times

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants:

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Climate & Energy



Follow this link:  

Critics call Mayor Rahm’s plans to light up Chicago at night a dim idea

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Critics call Mayor Rahm’s plans to light up Chicago at night a dim idea

"Community’s" Gillian Jacobs: TV’s Coolest Feminist?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “”>

Nowadays, Gillian Jacobs (pronounced with a hard G) is famous for her role on NBC’s acclaimed comedy Community, which returns for its fifth season on January 2. The series has brought her many fans and accolades, and she has since appeared in 2012’s Seeking a Friend for the End of the World and 2013’s Bad Milo! The Pittsburgh-born actress will also star in the 2014 comedy Walk of Shame (alongside one of her personal heroes, Elizabeth Banks), as well as the sequel to Hot Tub Time Machine, in which she plays the female lead.

But what if Jacobs had never gone into acting? What would she be doing instead? Well, if she had her way, she’d probably be sitting on the highest court in the land.

“I never pursued anything but acting,” Jacobs tells Mother Jones. “But as a kid, I was really interested in the Supreme Court. I wanted to to be a Supreme Court justice, but didn’t want to be a lawyer. I just wanted to go straight to being a justice.”

I ask her to name her all-time favorite justice—the one who might serve as the greatest influence on Associate Justice Gillian Jacobs.

All the ladies,” she answers waggishly. “Like Ginsburg and Sotomayor. We need more of them, but I’m glad we have some.”

Continue Reading »

Visit site:

"Community’s" Gillian Jacobs: TV’s Coolest Feminist?

Posted in alo, Broadway, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "Community’s" Gillian Jacobs: TV’s Coolest Feminist?

Yes, the Luddites Were Wrong. But So Was Thomas Malthus.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “”>

I had a pretty caustic reaction yesterday to James Bessen’s column arguing that improvements in technology won’t have a big effect on middle-class workers. Tim Lee responded by calling it “uncharacteristically thoughtless and sneering.”

Thoughtless? Sorry, I plead not guilty to that. But sneering? Yeah, maybe a bit. Here’s the problem: Bessen happened to hit on one of my pet peeves: people who argue that workers ended up doing fine during the Industrial Revolution, so they’ll end up doing fine in the upcoming Digital Revolution too. People who think otherwise are just modern-day Luddites who never learn.

Now, there’s no question that workers in the 19th century feared that their livelihoods would be eliminated by machines. And although many of them were right in the short term, they were wrong in the long term: Machines ended up amplifying human labor, raising productivity so much that there were still jobs for everyone. So if the steam-powered Luddites were wrong then, why should we listen to the shiny new digital Luddites today?

This is obviously an appealing argument, but I happen to think it shows a serious lack of imagination. Smart machines won’t simply replace some parts of work, they’ll eventually replace all parts of work. As they get smarter, fewer and fewer people will be needed to maintain and program machines, and eventually no one at all will be needed. If machines ever achieve human-level intelligence, then by definition human labor will no longer be necessary.

But why should we believe this? It’s possible that I’m missing something. After all, as Bessen says, the Luddites were wrong. Karl Marx was wrong. A lot of smart people were wrong about the Industrial Revolution. I’m arguing that this time it’s different, but usually that isn’t the case.

True enough. But let me offer another story along these lines. It’s the story of Thomas Malthus.

You remember Malthus? In 1798 he predicted doom and gloom for the human race. Population grows geometrically, which means that any gains in productivity are soon swamped. If we produce more food, this simply encourages us to have more children, and more of those children survive to adulthood. This drives down wages and living standards to their old level, world without end. Permanent progress is impossible.

Today, Malthus has about the same reputation as the Luddites. But don’t let that fool you: he was a brilliant economist, and he was right. That is, he was right about all of human history right up to about 1798. So when optimists argued that machines might make life better, Malthusians had every right to scoff. The moldboard plow didn’t make life better. Neither did the printing press, or the lateen sail, or the cotton gin. Why should we believe that this time things would be different?

But they were. The rise of mechanical power really was different. As brilliant as he was, Malthus didn’t see that.

Here’s the moral of the story: Occasionally, things really are different this time around. The Industrial Revolution didn’t put everyone out of work, but it did upend millennia of stagnation in living standards. This is why I reacted a little peevishly to Bessen. It’s true that we’ve heard before that machines would destroy people’s jobs, and this should certainly give us pause. But it’s the beginning of the argument, not a slam dunk riposte. Sometimes, new technology really does change the world. Our job is to think hard about this stuff and try to figure out which inventions are game changers and which ones are just handy gadgets. It’s inexcusably lazy to simply argue that previous rounds of technology didn’t make humans obsolete, so neither will this one. You might not want to be a modern-day Luddite, but you don’t want to be a modern-day Malthus either.

This time, things will be different.

POSTSCRIPT: Needless to say, this entire argument is predicated on the belief that machines will fairly rapidly become roughly as intelligent as humans. If you don’t believe this, that’s fine. Make your case. But it’s a whole different conversation than the one about what will happen if machines keep getting smarter and smarter.

View original article:  

Yes, the Luddites Were Wrong. But So Was Thomas Malthus.

Posted in alo, Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, the Luddites Were Wrong. But So Was Thomas Malthus.

Will the Supreme Court Stop Cops From Reading Your Text Messages?

Mother Jones

If you’re like many Americans, your cell phone is overflowing with personal information—text messages, emails, photos of your friends and family, an organized history of who you’ve been calling, private notes, automatic login to your Facebook and Twitter accounts, your favorite music, and even maps of where you like to run around your house. And if you’re anything like Mother Jones staffers, you probably keep your cell phone on you at all times. If I’m arrested on my way home from work (probably for eating on the Metro), you can bet that my smart phone will be in my pocket or my purse. And in Washington, DC, as well as most states across the country, the law won’t keep the arresting officer from taking my phone without a warrant, rifling through my text messages, copying the data for later use, and even breaking my password to do so—all things that would most likely be illegal if the officer went to my office and did them to my work computer, instead.

But that could soon change. The Supreme Court has been asked to consider two cases—United States v. Wurie and Riley v. California—which challenge the legality of warrantless cell phone searches under the Fourth Amendment. Police (and the Obama Administration) maintain that these searches are necessary, stopping suspects from deleting crucial information about drug deals and trafficking rings; but civil liberties advocates say that’s no excuse for officers not to get a warrant. Here’s everything you need to know about these searches, and whether the Supreme Court might stop them:

So, why are police allowed to search my cell phone without a warrant?

Terence McCormack, Flickr

The Fourth Amendment is supposed to protect Americans from being searched by police without a warrant—but there are exceptions, one of which kicks in as soon as you get arrested. If you’ve got cuffs on, even if you did nothing wrong, your rights now fall under the “Search Incident to Lawful Arrest Doctrine.” That means that the cop arresting you doesn’t need a warrant to search anything in close proximity to your body. The reason this exception exists is to keep law enforcement officers safe—say, if a suspect has a cigarette pack inside his shirt that could be mistaken for a gun—and to stop suspects from destroying evidence on the scene of the crime (like this alleged bank robber, who appears to be eating his hold-up note).

A court ruled in the 1970s that an item—in this particular case, a footlocker in a car trunk that contained marijuana—couldn’t be searched without a warrant once it had been taken away from the scene of the arrest. But as the Electronic Freedom Foundation notes, there still isn’t a decisive ruling as to whether this applies to smart phones. The way the law stands now in most states, police can take your cell phone, read your messages, and even copy data for a search later, citing the fact that you may be able to delete it remotely.

So could a cop search my computer without a warrant under this same logic?

Probably not. In order to go into your home and search your computer without a warrant, police need to have probable cause that you’re about to destroy important evidence from your hard drive, or have your consent. And Linda Lye, a staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) notes that “no court would say an officer can come search your home, without a warrant, because you’ve been arrested.” However, if you’re holding your computer when you get arrested or its in your car, it might be seized so that you can’t potentially destroy evidence (and if you’re at a US border, all bets are off, privacy-wise.)

In which states are these cell phone searches legal?

It depends on rulings made by state and federal courts. Only Ohio, Florida, and the First Circuit Court (which includes Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island) have decisively ruled that police need to get a warrant before reading your text messages. The rest of the states have either not ruled on the issue (meaning police can probably conduct the searches) or explicitly allow them. For more information on which states outlaw this practice and why, check out this awesome interactive map put together by Forbes and the Electronic Freedom Foundation (blue states outlaw these warrantless searches, red states allow them, and yellow states haven’t ruled.)


When have these warrantless searches happened?

Lots of times—here’s a brief review of 14 cases that have made it to court in the last six years alone. And not all the cases have to do with hard crimes. In 2012, a man who was protesting a proposed city law in San Francisco by pitching a tent and sleeping outside was arrested for loitering. Even though police already had evidence of his crime (i.e., the tent), they allegedly began to read his text messages, which included sensitive information and contacts that could affect his future lobbying efforts on the proposal.

What happened in the two cases that are facing the Supreme Court?

In 2007, Boston police nabbed Brima Wurie for allegedly engaging in a cocaine deal at a convenience store. After he was booked at the station, the officers noticed that the phone they had seized from Wurie was receiving calls from a number identified as “my house.” They then looked at his call log without a warrant and used that information, as well as a photo of what appeared to be his girlfriend, to find his home. They then searched his residence, obtaining additional evidence that was used to charge Warie. The US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit found that in this case, the officers violated the Fourth Amendment.

The second case, Riley v. California, deals with David Riley, who was stopped by officers because the tags on his car were expired—but his cell phone was then seized and searched, revealing that he participated in a 2009 gang shooting in San Diego. The California Supreme Court ruled that case was not a violation of the Fourth Amendment.

What’s the legal argument against these searches?

Susan Melkisethian

As Brianne Gorod, the appellate counsel for the Constitutional Accountability Center explains, “The search in Riley v. California violates that core purpose of the Fourth Amendment…If the Supreme Court doesn’t resolve this, police officers in some parts of the country will be able to search the entire contents of an individual’s cell phone, tablet, e-reader, and any other digital devices he has in his possession if he is arrested, even if the arrest is for a minor offense, such as failing to fasten his seatbelt.” Additionally, the judge in Wurie found that not only do cops not need to read text messages in order to determine whether a cell phone is a gun, but they don’t need to read them to stop evidence from being deleted, either:

Weighed against the significant privacy implications inherent in cell phone data searches, we view such a slight and truly theoretical risk of evidence destruction as insufficient. While evidence preservation measures, such as removing a phone’s battery may be less convenient for arresting officers than conducting a full search of a cell phone’s data incident to arrest, the government has not suggested that they are unworkable, and it bears the burden of justifying its failure to obtain a warrant.

The case where the San Francisco protester had his cell phone seized, described above, uniquely argues that the searches violate the First Amendment; because cell phones contain valuable contact information for assemblies and protests.

My phone is locked, so this won’t happen to me…right?

It could. While it’s illegal for officers to compel you to give up information that could lead to incriminating evidence; Linda Lye from the ACLU argues that “the courts are still struggling with the issue on whether you can compel someone to provide a password to a cell phone.” And Ryan Radia, writing for Ars Technica, notes that “once police have lawfully taken the phone off your person, they are free to try to crack the password by guessing it or by entering every possible combination.” Law enforcement definitely has the capacity to break cell phone locks—CNET reported in 2012 that major tech companies have been helping police bypass lock pages on cell phones for years—and many police departments have forensic extraction devices that can obtain data from computers and cell phones.

Why do law enforcement say these searches are necessary?

Ron Cottingham, president of the Peace Officers Research Association of California, argued in a US News and World Report op-ed earlier this month that not all people under arrest are going to have their cell phones searched without a warrant. Instead, “in cases involving human trafficking, sexual slavery and narcotics, the contents of these devices can prove to be invaluable.” He also notes that “for those who choose to disobey our laws, they must understand that their actions could result in the loss of the privacy they enjoyed.”

What are the chances of the Supreme Court actually hearing these cases?

Alan Butler, appellate advocacy counsel for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, says, “It’s very likely that the Supreme Court will grant certiorari and review the issue (either in Riley or Wurie). If the Court does not take one case, it will likely take the other.” Laurie Levenson, a professor at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles argues that, “I think this issue will make it up to the Supreme Court, however, the court often waits to see how the circuit courts work out the issue, so I don’t think that Riley or Wurie will necessarily be the cases that go all the way.” The Supreme Court should issue its decision within the next month.

View article – 

Will the Supreme Court Stop Cops From Reading Your Text Messages?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will the Supreme Court Stop Cops From Reading Your Text Messages?

Quick Reads: "The United States of Paranoia" by Jesse Walker

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “”>

The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory
By Jesse Walker

Democrats didn’t engineer a malaria outbreak to halt Andrew Johnson’s impeachment. Zachary Taylor didn’t eat poisoned cherries. Safeway isn’t controlled by the Illuminati (so far as we know). Reason editor Jesse Walker doesn’t just catalog conjured cabals, but offers his own conspiracy theory, too: that paranoia isn’t limited to the fringe—it’s everywhere, from post-9/11 foreign policy to liberal backlash against the tea party. Conspiracy theories “are not simply a colorful historical byway,” he writes. “They are at the country’s core.” And the dark and powerful force that penetrates the farthest reaches of society while remaining unknown to most Americans? That’s just our psyche.

Follow this link: 

Quick Reads: "The United States of Paranoia" by Jesse Walker

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on Quick Reads: "The United States of Paranoia" by Jesse Walker

Richard M. Daley Wants To Make Your City More Sustainable

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “”>

This story first appeared in National Journal and The Atlantic Cities and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Richard M. Daley, who served six terms as mayor of Chicago from 1989 to 2011, was one of the first big-city mayors to focus on sustainable development. Some of his projects, such as the development of Millennium Park, flourished. Others are more likely to be remembered as flops—Chicago taxpayers may lose money on a solar-power deal Daley negotiated, and his administration spent millions of dollars on recycling initiatives that went nowhere.

Two years after leaving office, the longtime mayor is using his hard-won experience to head up a new company—launched by his investment firm, Tur Partners—that will help cities pursue money-saving infrastructure investments. Cities that agree to join The Sustainability Exchange, or TSE, will get a free analysis of their assets and potential projects, and will share information with other member cities. TSE will alert vendors when a city is planning a request for a proposal. And because the company is low-profit instead of nonprofit, when a city or region decides to go ahead with a project, TSE will take a cut of the savings the city realizes over time.

Five cities have already signed up to join the fledgling exchange, including South Bend, Indiana; Parma, Ohio; and New Orleans. National Journal‘s Sophie Quinton recently spoke with Daley and Lori Healey, his former chief of staff and now TSE vice chairwoman, about how their idea is taking shape.

Why is there a need for something like The Sustainability Exchange?

Daley: Everybody has problems with infrastructure. Whether it’s a port, rail, water, lighting, waste—this is part of the sustainability effort that we’re looking at. We’re looking at working with groups of cities to identify the project, raise the capital from the private sector as well as the public, and document the results.

Healey: Most cities are not New York or Chicago or Los Angeles. They don’t have either the technical or financial resources to plan out and implement these kinds of projects. The Sustainability Exchange creates a platform that allows cities to come together to access national expertise in these areas—at no cost to them—with the goal of executing a transaction in a much compressed time frame.

Continue Reading »

Read the article:

Richard M. Daley Wants To Make Your City More Sustainable

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, PUR, solar, solar power, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Richard M. Daley Wants To Make Your City More Sustainable

A Musical Tribute to Kate McGarrigle

Mother Jones

Various Artists
Sing Me the Songs: Celebrating the Works of Kate McGarrigle

Drawn from concerts in New York, London, and Toronto, and produced by Joe Boyd (also recently responsible for a terrific Nick Drake tribute), this exhilarating two-disc set commemorates the beloved Canadian singer-songwriter Kate McGarrigle, who died in 2010. Participants include her longtime musical partner, sister Anna McGarrigle, plus kids Rufus and Martha Wainwright and a gaggle of friends and fans, among them Norah Jones, Jimmy Fallon, Emmylou Harris, Linda Thompson, Richard Thompson, and Broken Social Scene.

But McGarrigle’s compositions are the main reason to listen. Tender, funny and reliably clear-eyed in her portrayal of grown-up relationships, she never let heartache get in the way of a great melody or compelling narrative. If “Kiss and Say Goodbye” or “I Cried for Us” doesn’t strike a nerve, then “Tell My Sister” or “Go Leave” surely will. While the final track, Kate’s home demo of “I Just Want to Make It Last,” provides a suitably poignant coda, don’t stop there: If you’re unfamiliar with the McGarrigle sisters’ albums, there’s a host of fine songs waiting to be discovered.

Original link:

A Musical Tribute to Kate McGarrigle

Posted in FF, GE, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , | Comments Off on A Musical Tribute to Kate McGarrigle

Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

It was notable when Bill McKibben of and Philip Radford of Greenpeace recently came out in support of immigration-reform legislation.

But it’s really notable that the Sierra Club has now joined them. Over the past decade and a half, the club has had vicious leadership battles over immigration and population. But now the board of directors, which is elected by the group’s 1.4 million members, is unanimously agreed. From Politico:

The Sierra Club’s board voted Wednesday to support comprehensive immigration reform …

The decision is a major shift for the group, which has a storied past over the issue.

Sierra Club leaders in the mid-2000s fought off an insurgent effort trying to have the club take an explicitly anti-immigration stance, with some members claiming it was needed to overcome the effects of more people living more consumptive American life styles. The effort fell apart after a pitched battle.

Other environmental groups have historically helped financially support immigration reform opponents like Numbers USA and Federation for American Immigration Reform.

Here’s the official position adopted by the Sierra Club board:

Currently at least 11 million people live in the U.S. in the shadows of our society. Many of them work in jobs that expose them to dangerous conditions, chemicals and pesticides, and many more of them live in areas with disproportionate levels of toxic air, water, and soil pollution. To protect clean air and water and prevent the disruption of our climate, we must ensure that those who are most disenfranchised and most threatened by pollution within our borders have the voice to fight polluters and advocate for climate solutions without fear.

The Sierra Club takes a position to support an equitable path to citizenship for residents of the United States who lack official documentation. America’s undocumented population should be able to earn legalization and a timely pathway to citizenship, with all the rights to fully participate in our democracy, including influencing environmental and climate policies. The pathway to citizenship should be free of unreasonable barriers, and should facilitate keeping families together and reuniting those that are split whenever possible.

If you like (or hate!) this news, you might want to check out another recent Grist post on the issue: How immigration reform can lead us to a stronger environmental movement.

Lisa Hymas is senior editor at Grist. You can follow her on





Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Politics

Also in Grist

Please enable JavaScript to see recommended stories

See the original post – 

Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, ONA, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sierra Club comes out in favor of immigration reform

Study: Siri Doesn’t Make Texting While Driving Any Safer

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “”>

April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month, a time when safety and transportation experts beg, plead and cajole Americans to put down their phones while driving, lest they become a murderer behind the wheel. It’s a thankless job, as American drivers suffer from some serious delusions about their abilities to pilot a car safely while texting their girlfriends, shopping on eBay, or dialing in to Rush Limbaugh. Despite the fact that a quarter of all motor vehicle crashes today involve cell phone use, Americans still think it’s only other drivers who are the problem. More than 90 percent of drivers think other drivers texting or using cell phones behind the wheel are a threat to their personal safety, yet two in three of them do it anyway, according to the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety.

Elected officials have been reluctant to address the problem, passing legislation that reinforces drivers’ delusions—like the law here in DC that allows people to drive and talk on the phone so long as they use a hands-free device, even though there’s no evidence that talking on a Bluetooth is any safer than just holding up the old phone. (Spend some time in DC cabs to get a sense of how well this law is working out.)

Phone companies have been trying to come up with technical solutions that might head off further attempts by lawmakers to curb cell phone use while driving. The latest of these has been the suggestion that Siri can help. The idea is that simply talking to your phone to send a text rather than punching in the message would somehow allow people to keep their eyes on the road and drive safely while texting. As it turns out, the notion that an app will save lives is as faulty as the promise that the Bluetooth would.

A new study out from the Texas A&M Transportation Institute this month found that:

Driver response time was terrible regardless of whether the driver was manually texting or using Siri.
Texting drivers of any sort took twice as long to react to roadway hazards than when they were off the phone.
Texting drivers spent a lot of time not looking at the road, regardless of whether they were using a voice-to-text app.
Manual texting was actually quicker than using a voice app, but driving performance was equally bad in both cases.

The new study also found a new form of distracted driving delusions: Drivers felt less safe when they were texting, but they felt safer using a voice app than texting manually, even though their performance on the road was equally dangerous.

Moral of the story: When you get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle, just put down the damn phone! And just as a chilling reminder of why this is important, watch this video:


Study: Siri Doesn’t Make Texting While Driving Any Safer

Posted in FF, GE, ONA, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Study: Siri Doesn’t Make Texting While Driving Any Safer

Day Care, the Final Frontier

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “”>

In 2011, Jon Cohn wrote a story called “The Two Year Window,” about new research demonstrating the importance of the first two years of a child’s life. Roughly speaking, most child care that’s average or better is probably OK. But down in the bottom third, conditions are often bad enough to cause permanent cognitive damage, sometimes at a biological level. One third is a lot of kids.

Appropriately, two years later Cohn is back with a follow-up, “The Hell of American Day Care.” Children who get proper attention and interaction, he says, “tend to develop the skills they need to thrive as adults—like learning how to calm down after a setback or how to focus on a problem long enough to solve it”:

Kids who grow up without that kind of attention tend to lack impulse control and have more emotional outbursts. Later on, they are more likely to struggle in school or with the law. They also have more physical health problems. Numerous studies show that all children, especially those from low-income homes, benefit greatly from sound child care. The key ingredients are quite simple—starting with plenty of caregivers, who ideally have some expertise in child development.

By these metrics, American day care performs abysmally. A 2007 survey by the National Institute of Child Health Development deemed the majority of operations to be “fair” or “poor”—only 10 percent provided high-quality care. Experts recommend a ratio of one caregiver for every three infants between six and 18 months, but just one-third of children are in settings that meet that standard.

….At the same time, day care is a bruising financial burden for many families—more expensive than rent in 22 states. In the priciest, Massachusetts, it costs an average family $15,000 a year to place an infant full-time in a licensed center. In California, the cost is equivalent to 40 percent of the median income for a single mother.

I remain convinced that the biggest bang for the buck we could get from any kind of new government spending would involve getting serious about pre-K day care. It wouldn’t be cheap: probably the better part of $100 billion per year. That might take the form of subsidies and regulation, or of government-run day care centers. The latter worked well during World War II, and continue to work well for the military. And it’s a system that serves the French well, with their system of crèches and école maternelles. But it’s not the only way. Tougher regulation of private day care, along with better training and subsidies for poor families, could do the job too:

Since the 1930s, with the introduction of Social Security, the United States has constructed—slowly, haphazardly, often painfully—a welfare state. Pensions, public housing, health care—piece by piece, the government created protections for citizens that the market doesn’t always provide. Child care is the major unfinished part of that project. The lack of quality, affordable day care is arguably the most significant barrier to full equality for women in the workplace. It makes it more likely that children born in poverty will remain there. That’s why other developed countries made child care a collective responsibility long ago.

With universal healthcare finally on the horizon (though progressing with plenty of fits and starts), pre-K is now the last big brick in the social welfare edifice. It’s insane that we deliberately give it such short shrift, even with the knowledge that universal, decent-quality pre-K would almost certainly produce a smarter, more stable, better adjusted generation of adults in the very near future. For more, read the whole story. It’s worth a few minutes of your time.

This article: 

Day Care, the Final Frontier

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , | Comments Off on Day Care, the Final Frontier