Category Archives: Scotts

"That’s What That N—– Deserved"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

“The one place where a man ought to get a square deal is in a courtroom, be he any color of the rainbow, but people have a way of carrying their resentments right into a jury box.” —Lawyer Atticus Finch in Harper Lee’s To Kill A Mockingbird

In April 2005, nearly eight years after Kenneth Fults was sentenced to death for kidnapping and murdering his neighbor Cathy Bounds in Spalding County, Georgia, one of the trial jurors made a startling admission under oath: He’d voted for the death penalty, he said, because “that’s what that nigger deserved.”

It shouldn’t come as too much of a surprise, given the circumstances—a black man admitting to the murder of a white woman in the deep South—that some white jurors might secretly harbor racist views. The surprising part was that this juror, Thomas Buffington, came right out and said it. And what should have been the most surprising development of all (alas, it wasn’t) came this past August, when a federal appeals court, presented with ample evidence, refused to consider how racism might have affected Fults’ fate.

Continue Reading »

Original link – 

"That’s What That N—– Deserved"

Posted in Anchor, Casio, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Scotts, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "That’s What That N—– Deserved"

Cancer Experts Are Finally Feeling Optimistic. Here’s Why.

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

In Cancer: The Emperor of All Maladies, a three-part documentary executive-produced by Ken Burns and set to air on PBS March 30-April 1, director Barak Goodman delivers a sweeping (and fascinating, and tear-jerking, and horrifying) history of the science, politics, and culture of the disease we fear most.

The film, based on the Pulitzer Prize-winning book by oncologist Siddhartha Mukherjee, escorts viewers from our dismal past into a more-hopeful modern era in which genomics and big data promise actual breakthroughs after decades of crushing defeats and blunt-force treatments ranging from poisoning (chemo) to radical mastectomy.

Goodman, whose previous work has earned him two Emmys and a Oscar nomination—that was in 2001, for Scottsboro: An American Tragedy—introduces us to contemporary doctors and patients coping with the vast gaps that remain in our understanding of the disease, as well as to the historical figures who had the most profound impact—for good and for ill—on the lives of the stricken. Watch the trailer first, and then we’ll chat with the director.

Mother Jones: What drew you to this history? Have you been personally affected?

Barak Goodman: My beloved grandmother died of colon cancer when I was 20. I remember it being very traumatic. It’s one of the most avoidable kinds, but they caught it late and she died very suddenly. So that was lurking in the background, but the proximate cause was I got a phone call from WETA, expressing their interest in making the book into a film. The book is really a wonderful piece of work. It opened my eyes to a lot of things.

Children receiving blood tranfusions. Getty Images

MJ: How would you rate our success in the so-called war on cancer?

BG: Certainly it’s been a failure if you hold it up to its own expectations. At the time they declared it, in 1971, the goal was to solve the problem within a decade or less. Mortality rates now are down somewhat, but not strikingly so. But in terms of our understanding of what cancer is and what the cancer cell is, it’s been a huge success. It’s striking how little we knew then. In the film, people say it was compared with going to the moon, only that was much easier because we knew how to get to the moon, we knew where the moon was. In this case we knew next to nothing. A lot of progress has been made, and we’re really poised to translate that knowledge into therapies, so knowledgeable people are quite optimistic.

A cancer surgeon operates at John Hopkins University hospital in 1904. Associated Press

MJ: And yet cancer has always proved unexpectedly elusive.

BG: Unbelievable! It is the most devilishly complicated, resilient disease—set of diseases—that is possible to imagine. First, it’s harnessing the very forces that give us life—it’s life unleashed, in a way. To defeat it without killing you is very difficult. The second thing is, it changes so fast, mutation upon mutation, and it becomes not a single target but 100. Figuring out how to combat it with any one drug or any set of drugs, for most kinds of cancer, is almost impossible.

MJ: Chemotherapy works well for childhood leukemia, but not much else. It strikes me as incredibly primitive. You’re literally poisoning people hoping it’ll kill the cancer before it kills the patient. Some of these drugs can actually cause cancer! Do we know how many people die from their treatments versus how many are saved by them?

BG: That’s very hard to pin down, because it varies from cancer to cancer enormously, and the stage of cancer. But you’re right. Chemotherapy is an incredibly blunt instrument—and yet it still is the predominant therapy. There’s been lots of talk about therapies that are more specifically aimed at what’s wrong with a cancer cell, but really only a fairly small number of those targeted therapies have been developed. As you point out, chemotherapy sometimes extends life a few months, but often not much more—and it’s hellacious to go through.

MJ: We’re essentially using the same treatments we did 30 years ago.

BG: We are. They’re somewhat more effective, somewhat more targeted, and they use them in combinations that make them more effective, but the paradigm is the same. Of course, we haven’t discussed prevention and early detection. The decline of smoking rates alone has had more impact on mortality than anything else by far. So that’s a promising way of getting to cancer.

A cancer operation, circa 1890. Harvard Medical School

MJ: Okay, so if everyone quit smoking right now, today, what sort of drop would we see in cancer rates?

BG: I believe 30 percent. We have a quote in the film that if all known prevention methods were put into effect—not only stopping smoking but controlling obesity, less exposure to UV rays, and other things—we could cut cancer by 50 percent right now.

MJ: If you were to graph cancer mortality for nonsmokers over time, what would that look like?

BG: Pretty much flat. It’s a little tough, because you have to correct for an aging population, but when you compare apples to apples from today to 25 to 30 years ago, I think it’d be slightly declining. Early detection has had an impact on breast cancer death rates and certainly colonoscopy has had a huge impact on colon cancer. Vaccinations have had a huge impact on cervical cancer. But overall it’s a pretty flat chart, and that’s disturbing after spending billions of dollars. But if you stop the clock right now, it doesn’t account for the undercurrent of basic science that’s set us up for much more rapid advances in the next 30 years. I’m not trying to be Pollyanna-ish. With a couple of exceptions, every major researcher feels we’ve turned a corner.

MJ: But people have been saying things like that for decades.

BG: Yes, but that’s deceptive. As Sid Siddhartha Mukherjee says at the end of the film, there’s this superficial cycle of optimism followed by crushing disappointment all through the history of cancer. From radical surgery to chemotherapy to targeted therapy, it happens again and again. But what that discounts is a steady upward trajectory in knowledge. Already, immunotherapy, probably the most exciting new avenue of cancer therapy, is making a significant difference. These clinical trials are extremely promising for a certain subset of cancers.

Siddhartha Mukherjee wrote the book on which the film is based. Ark Media/Florentine Films

MJ: What about all of the other cancers?

BG: The most common cancers are also the hardest to attack with conventional therapies. All the smoking-related cancers, including lung and kidney cancer, and also melanoma, have too many mutations to target with drugs. On the other hand, those cancer cells look very different from healthy cells and are more vulnerable to immunotherapy. So immunotherapy may have the easiest time with the most complicated cancers, and those caused by the fewest mutations are probably the ones for which we’ll develop targeted drug therapies. The ones in the middle are going to be the biggest problem.

Radical mastectomy. Johns Hopkins Medical Archives

MJ: Your film really underscores the hubris of the medical profession—the jealous guarding of clinical turf against emerging facts. It covers, for example, how radical mastectomy was developed on the false assumption that cancers grow in an orderly pattern. Will you talk about what happened when Dr. Bernard Fischer challenged that prevailing dogma?

BG: With radical mastectomy there was a very logical assumption that the more you cut out, the more lives you save, but it was never subjected to clinical trials. In fact, there were no such thing as clinical trials when it was first developed. As Sid says, these half-truths become full truths in peoples’ minds, and the mere suggestion that they’re wrong triggers a hysterical reaction.

Bernie Fischer just had a very independent streak and was not someone who accepted received wisdom without question—and he was tough enough to undergo the bruising that happened when he proposed clinical trials on radical mastectomy. He was cut off from his grants. He was vilified. He was ostracized. He didn’t care! It takes someone like that to puncture these entrenched ideas.

MJ: Millions of women owe a debt to that guy.

BG: Huge debt! He is one of the real heroes of the cancer story. They’re few and far between.

MJ: Would breast cancer treatment have developed differently had it mainly affected men?

BG: Without a doubt. As Rose Kushner says in the film, nobody would cut off a man’s limb without his permission while he was asleep, but if it came to a woman’s breasts, they did it all the time. There was this paternalistic attitude—a kind of disregard for the notion that women’s breasts might be important to them in some way other than to feed children. It took not only Bernie Fischer, but the activism of women with breast cancer to overturn that. I think it’s no accident that breast cancer has triggered the most intense activism of any kind of cancer. It’s these women who have underwent the worst, most disfiguring, most debilitating kinds of treatments.

MJ: Also, now, when you put a promising new cancer drug in clinical trials, you get a lot of people saying, “I don’t want to be in a randomized trial, I just want the drug.” Will you reflect on the ethics of that situation?

BG: It’s a difficult problem. This cycle of optimism followed by disappointment—the only solution is to subject these things to disciplined trials. In the case of Herceptin, Genentech responsibly resisted opening its trials to lots of women who simply wanted the drug. As then-CEO Art Levinson says in the film, you want to be able to look people in the eye and say, “I know this drug can help you,” and you can’t do that without a clinical trial. As harsh as that may seem, it’s the best way of determining efficacy. We have a scene with parents of a little girl who are weighing whether to enroll her in a clinical trial and they’re struggling with the idea that a computer is gonna randomly pick the treatment their child gets. It’s very hard for people to accept, but it’s scientifically necessary.

MJ: Knowing everything you know, how do you suppose you would approach treatment if you were diagnosed?

BG: I ask myself that all the time. I think I would probably try anything, simply because you hear these stories of miracles. They do happen. I was just with a woman the other night who had stage four metastatic melanoma, which was 100 percent fatal until recently. She was told she had months to live and she decided to take one more step and enroll in this immunotherapy trial at Memorial Sloan Kettering. Now she’s three years cancer-free with prospects of living a normal life. I certainly don’t judge anyone who decides not to do that. I admire, in a way, people and doctors who accept the overwhelming likelihood that you won’t be cured. But I probably would take the chance.

MJ: I’m still trying to get a handle on whether chemo even helps people, other than kids with Leukemia.

BG: The problem is, chemotherapy is a one-size-fits-all solution but cancer is different for every person—literally. I don’t understand all the intricacies, but it’s very hard to say, “You’re gonna benefit from chemotherapy, and you’re not.” You kind of gotta try it. One of the promising avenues of research, by the way, is getting a better sense for each person which mutations underlie their cancer. Almost like you’d get a blood test, you’d get a genetic test and then they are able to target those things.

MJ: How long before that’s routine?

BG: Not long at all. If you’ve got the money you can already do that. But the costs of these kinds of genetic tests are nose-diving. I’d say in 5 to 10 years almost everybody will have their cancer sequenced, and then a better set of decisions can be made. Right now they’re still throwing the kitchen sink at people. But that will change.

Lori Wilson, an oncologist featured in the film, found herself battling cancer. Ark Media/Florentine Films

Continue reading: 

Cancer Experts Are Finally Feeling Optimistic. Here’s Why.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Scotts, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Cancer Experts Are Finally Feeling Optimistic. Here’s Why.

Are Solar Companies Ripping You Off?

green4us

Members of Congress and a big utility are teaming up to raise that question. But experts think their concerns are overblown. Solar panels on the roof of a house in Apache Junction, Arizona. Darryl Webb/AP Back in December, a group of Republican members of Congress from Arizona and Texas sent a worried letter to the Federal Trade Commission. Solar panel companies, the letter claimed, might be using deceptive marketing practices to lease their rooftop systems to homeowners without fully disclosing the financial risks. The concerns were similar to those raised a month earlier by Democratic lawmakers—also from Arizona and Texas—in a letter sent to the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Both letters raised the specter of serious problems in the business model of the country’s fastest-growing energy source. But as the Arizona Center for Investigative Reporting revealed last month, the Republicans’ letter was originally drafted by an employee of Arizona Public Service, the state’s biggest electric utility and a long-time opponent of third-party solar companies. The draft was passed by APS to the office of Rep. Paul Gosar (R), which made a few changes, got the Congressman’s signature, and sent it off, according to AZCIR’s report. (The letter is here; the highlights were added by AZCIR to show where changes had been made from the original APS draft.) It’s not the first time APS has engaged in this type of secretive advocacy to undermine solar, an exploding industry that poses an existential threat to the old-school utility’s bottom line. In 2013, the company outed itself as the backer of two secretive nonprofits that ran an aggressive anti-solar ad campaign in the state. Back then, the company’s target was net metering, the policy that requires utility companies to buy excess electricity produced by its customers’ rooftop panels. Now APS’s focus appears to have shifted to the marketing practices of companies that lease solar panels to homeowners. “This is the next evolution in the utility playbook,” said Susan Glick, a spokesperson for The Alliance for Solar Choice, an advocacy group that represents some of the country’s biggest solar companies. APS wants “to demonize rooftop solar and ensure they have a monopoly,” she said. The cost of rooftop solar systems has plummeted in recent years. But some solar companies have realized that many homeowners are still unable to pay north of $10,000 to buy and install panels. Instead, the trendy option is solar leasing: A company installs panels on your roof for free and then charges you a monthly fee for the power they produce, which in theory is less than what you paid your electric utility. A recent industry survey found that about half of all residential solar systems are leased rather than owned. A spokesperson for Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick (D)—one of the authors of the Democratic letter—told Climate Desk that Kirkpatrick wanted to “take the lead” on the letter to the CFPB “after receiving numerous complaints about solar rooftop leasing practices in Arizona.” The spokesperson added that “any suggestion that the congresswoman issued the letter because of coercion by the utilities is false.” The APS-authored letter from Gosar and his GOP colleagues was more specific. It alleged that, as part of their rush to sign up customers before a federal tax credit expires, solar leasing companies have been overstating the savings that homeowners will receive. Neither Gosar’s office nor APS returned requests for comment. Both letters drew parallels between solar leasing and the subprime mortgage crisis, in which financial companies used shady lending practices to lure home buyers into mortgages they couldn’t really afford. It’s been a couple months now since the letters were fired off, and the response from the feds has been mixed. On Jan. 12 the CFPB responded to Kirkpatrick and her peers, writing that the agency is “currently studying a number of overlapping issues that may implicate the leasing of rooftop panels.” A CFPB spokesperson declined to elaborate on what exactly those issues are and whether these inquiries were instigated by Kirkpatrick’s letter. An FTC spokesperson said the agency had not yet taken any action on solar leasing. Back in Arizona, last month the state’s Corporation Commission opened a docket to collect preliminary information on solar leasing, with the possibility of a more thorough investigation in the future, a spokesperson said. So is the congressional prodding warranted, or just glorified lobbying for one freaked-out utility company? For all the noise, actual complaints against solar leasing companies seem to be relatively rare. According to the AZCIR report, Gosar’s chief of staff said he had not actually seen any complaints, and a spokesperson for Kirkpatrick “declined to answer questions about the quantity of reports, the way the reports reached their office, or to confirm that they reviewed any consumer complaints.” The Corporation Commission docket currently contains only one complaint, from a Scottsdale resident who claimed that “uneducated residents are bamboozled into these programs by unscrupulous businesses looking to make a quick buck.” That was essentially the complaint in a separate 2013 lawsuit against SunRun, a leading solar leasing company, brought by a California man who claimed he was misled about cost savings. SunRun denied the allegation, and that claim has since been dropped, the man’s law firm said. And a smattering of news outlets have reported cases of homeowners finding it more difficult than they expected to sell homes that are attached to a solar lease. But Travis Lowder, an energy finance analyst with the Department of Energy’s National Renewable Energy Lab, said complaints like this tend to be rare, isolated incidents that don’t reflect systemic flaws with the solar leasing business model. Lowder runs a team that has spent the last several years developing standardized contracts and practices for solar leasing companies. “The solar industry has been very proactive on consumer protection laws,” Lowder said. “They don’t want to put the consumer in the position where the consumer is going to default, because they need that cash flow” to support the large up-front costs of solar installations on other roofs. The biggest issue, Lowder said, comes down the long lifespan of a typical solar lease: 20 years. Over that time scale, a solar lease ultimately amounts to thousands of dollars of debt taken on by homeowners. What’s more, most lease contracts include terms that gradually increase the monthly fees paid by homeowners over time. The pitch to customers is that the solar fee rate will escalate less than the cost of grid electricity. (Over the last decade, the average cost of electricity nationwide rose 36 percent.) The problem is that it’s practically impossible to make iron-clad predictions about cost savings that far in advance. Unforeseen changes to US energy policy or to a customer’s local electricity market, for example, could potentially reduce savings from solar over the grid, while homeowners remain locked in to their original contracts. Energy investors and analysts make those predictive calculations all the time, but always with a number of assumptions about future market conditions and an appreciation for the built-in uncertainty. So the challenge is communicating that uncertainty to customers. Solar leases “are certainly not risk-free,” said Nathanael Green, a renewables policy analyst with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Still, he said, the agitation from APS is “almost without a doubt a politically motivated attack.” “That doesn’t mean it’s all nonsense,” added Green. “You have to separate out some of the silliness from the real things we can do a better job of.” Either way, courts and state and federal regulators will now have a chance to weigh in. Because Arizona is among the country’s largest solar markets, with a colorful history of conflict between incumbent power companies and their renewable rivals, the outcome there could set the stage for how solar leasing is treated elsewhere. Nicholas Mack, the general counsel of solar financing company Clean Power Finance, has worked with NREL on developing best practices for solar leasing. The solar industry will be ready if the government comes knocking, he said: “I do think we can withstand the scrutiny.”

View this article – 

Are Solar Companies Ripping You Off?

Related Posts

Here Comes the Son: Barry Goldwater Jr. Fights for Solar Power in Arizona
Which States Use the Most Green Energy?
Now You Can Get Solar Panels at Best Buy
How 9 Major Papers Deal With Climate-Denying Letters
Arizona Utility Tries Storing Solar Energy for Use in the Dark

Share this:






Read this article: 

Are Solar Companies Ripping You Off?

Posted in bamboo, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, green energy, LAI, Monterey, ONA, OXO, Scotts, solar, solar panels, solar power, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are Solar Companies Ripping You Off?

5 Reasons Your Poll Worker Might Be Totally Clueless

Mother Jones

During his acceptance speech after winning reelection, President Barack Obama thanked voters who endured hours-long long lines to cast their ballots. “By the way,” he added, “we have to fix that.” Trying to make good on that promise, Obama created a presidential commission that spent months digging into the dysfunctional American voting system. One of its many conclusions was, to put it bluntly, that the nation’s poll workers suck. As the report noted, “One of the signal weaknesses of the system of election administration in the United States is the absence of a dependable, well-trained trained corps of poll workers.”

Poll workers, most of whom are volunteers (who typically receive a small stipend), have immense power that far surpasses their standing in the local election bureaucracy. They often make decisions about whether an individual can vote and whether that vote actually gets counted—recall the infamous Florida “hanging chads” during the 2000 presidential election recount. Often they make these decisions poorly, and the people who bear the brunt of those bad decisions are disproportionately African-American and Latino, who often face chronically understaffed polling stations that lack trained workers and those who are bilingual.

If things are running less than smoothly at your polling place today, here are five reasons why the poll workers at your precinct might be clueless:

Continue Reading »

Link: 

5 Reasons Your Poll Worker Might Be Totally Clueless

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Anchor, Anker, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Scotts, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Reasons Your Poll Worker Might Be Totally Clueless

Arizona School District Cutting Contraception from High School Biology Text

Mother Jones

Via Steve Benen, here’s the latest from Gilbert, Arizona:

School district staff here will “edit” a high-school honors biology textbook after board members agreed that it does not align with state regulations on how abortion is to be presented to public-school students.

….The book in question, Campbell Biology: Concepts & Connections (Seventh Edition), has a chapter that discusses abstinence, birth-control methods, tubal ligations and vasectomies and drugs that can induce abortion.

….The board made its decision after listening to a presentation from Natalie Decker, a lawyer for Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom….Decker did not recommend a way to change the book but said it could be redacted or have additional information pasted in. “The cheapest, least disruptive way to solve the problem is to remove the page,” board member Daryl Colvin said.

This whole thing is ridiculous, and the prospect of taking a razor blade to p. 547 of this textbook is cringe-inducing. Hell, as near as anyone can tell, the book doesn’t even violate Arizona law, which requires public schools to present child birth and adoption as preferred options to elective abortion. Apparently there are just some folks in Gilbert who don’t like having the subject presented at all.

Still, ridiculous as this is, I do have a serious question to ask. I checked, and this is not a “Human Sexuality” text or a “Health and Family” book. It’s straight-up biology: photosynthesis, genes, evolution, eukaryotic cells, vertebrates, nervous systems, hormones, the immune system, etc. etc. So why, in a generic biology textbook, is there a special boxed page devoted to specific technical means of contraception in human beings? That really does seem like something pasted in to make a point, not because it follows naturally from a discussion of reproduction and embryonic development in class Mammalia.

So….what’s the point of including this in the first place? To annoy conservatives? To satisfy some obscure interest group? If this book were used in a sex ed class, that would be one thing. It would clearly belong. But in a standard biology text? I don’t really get it.

See the original post:  

Arizona School District Cutting Contraception from High School Biology Text

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Scotts, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Arizona School District Cutting Contraception from High School Biology Text

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

15 Oct 2014 6:37 PM

Share

Share

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

×

On Wednesday, Whole Foods started issuing ratings for its fruit, veggies, and flowers to measure the quality of farming practices. The rating system is simple: Fresh food is divided up as “good,” “better,” and “best.” It’s like getting gold, red, or green stars from your kindergarten teacher! Except it’s Whole Foods, instead of Mrs. Carter, grading you — and it’s judging greenhouse gas emissions, ecosystem management, and farmworker treatment, instead of coloring book pages.

Here is some of what Whole Foods is measuring (click here for the full list):

[F]arming practices that evaluate, protect and improve soil health. Examples include composting, rotating crops and using the latest science to measure and enhance nutrients in the soil.

[F]arming practices that create better working conditions. Examples include reducing pesticide risks, providing protective equipment and participating in third-party auditing programs to promote safe conditions and fair compensation.

[F]arming practices that protect and conserve water. Examples include rainwater collection and drip irrigation.

[F]arming practices that protect native species. Examples include planting “bee-friendly” wildflowers, improving conservation areas and taking steps to protect beneficial insects from harmful chemicals.

Fruits, flowers, and vegetables that come from overseas also have to comply with the rating system — yes, Whole Foods imports produce from overseas — even when the country’s standards for pesticides and soil composition are different.

Retrieving the information to issue the labels is complicated, too, and some farmers have insinuated that the system may be taking things a teeny bit too far. Sellers have to undergo a thorough certification process, answering questions about the minutia of each farms’ practices. Reports the New York Times:

“For instance, they want to know about earthworms and how many I have in my soil,” said Mr. Lyman, whose family has grown apples, peaches, pears, and various berries on their farm in Middlefield, Conn., since 1741. “I thought, How do I count every earthworm? It’s going to take a while.”

So while farmers are counting worms in the dirt to scramble for the coveted “best” title, Whole Foods says that it’s just trying to be more honest. Or, here comes the buzzword, more transparent. Plus, the fancy organic food seller now has to compete with cheaper super-companies like Walmart, McDonald’s, General Mills, and Cargill, who are starting up similar transparency campaigns (*cough* marketing ploys) — like McDonald’s recent social media blitz — in order to appeal to curious consumers such as those meddling kids, millennials.

Whether the transparency campaign will make a difference for Whole Food’s sales is still up in the air, but farmers can rest assured that they will be certain to score, at the very least, “good.”

Find this article interesting?
Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Source article:  

Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Scotts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is the new Whole Foods rating system creating an inferiority complex for zucchini?

Why more roads = more traffic jams

Why more roads = more traffic jams

15 Oct 2014 4:28 PM

Share

Share

Why more roads = more traffic jams

×

We’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: Adding more roads — and more lanes on those roads — does absolutely nothing for gridlock. It’s counterintuitive, perhaps, but it’s true: Five years, $1 billion, and at least one new traffic-hell moniker later (“Carmageddon”), L.A. drivers on the 405 freeway actually added a minute to their daily commutes, in spite (or because?) of a snazzy new carpool lane.

From Southern California Public Radio:

That outcome is probably not surprising to economist Matthew Turner.

Turner co-authored a study that showed a one-to-one correlation in road capacity and the amount of drivers on the road.

“There’s a lot of trips that you don’t take because you don’t want to drive when it’s congested,” he says, “and if it’s little bit less congested there’s a lot of trips people are willing to take.”

There are just too many cars, and traffic has as much to do with human psychology as it does infrastructure. If we attempt to relieve gridlock, all we get is more drivers, and more gridlock. As Umbra put it in a recent post, carpool lanes are “designed to make driving easier. Yes, they have some environmental bennies, but they don’t do enough to attack our main climate goal: curbing driving, period.”

The only thing that will actually help curb traffic, according to Turner, is charging people to drive at rush hour. (He claims it’s worked in Europe and Asia). This kind of disincentive may be just as important as alt-transport incentives. Hit us where it hurts, and we may choose not to drive so much. ’Nuff said.

Source:
Why the 405 isn’t any faster with more lanes

, Southern California Public Radio.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Get stories like this in your inbox

AdvertisementAdvertisement

Read this article – 

Why more roads = more traffic jams

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Scotts, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why more roads = more traffic jams

Should You Freak Out If You See a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?

Mother Jones

Should you automatically go to jail for leaving your kid alone in the car? That question has gained new attention since the arrest of Shanesha Taylor, an unemployed single mom who left her two young children in her vehicle during a 45-minute job interview in Scottsdale, Arizona. After her arrest, Taylor’s tearful mugshot elicited broad sympathy. Yet the temperature inside Taylor’s car that afternoon had risen above 100 degrees and her kids were crying and profusely sweating. (The prosecutor agreed to dismiss the child abuse charges against Taylor.)

While Taylor’s case may have been unusual, what parent hasn’t contemplated the pros and cons of extracting a napping baby from a car seat just to dash into a convenience store? Leaving a kid in a locked, parked vehicle in the shade is usually pretty safe. However, it’s definitely a bad idea to leave your kid unattended in a car for more than a few minutes on a hot day. Last year, at least 39 children died from heatstroke in vehicles; 21 have died so far this year. The interior of a car left in 80-degree heat with the windows rolled up can reach 120 degrees in less than an hour. Cracking the windows doesn’t always cool the car down. Small kids more easily succumb to heatstroke, which can kick in when the body’s internal temperature reaches just 104 degrees.

Whether leaving a child unattended in a car is a crime largely depends on where you live. Twenty states have laws addressing the issue. Only Louisiana, Maryland, and Nebraska outright ban the practice, though they differ on the definition of a child and a suitable guardian to stay in the car. Kids can remain in unattended vehicles for no more than 5 minutes in Texas, Utah, and Hawaii; you get 10 minutes in Illinois and 15 minutes in Florida. Laws in several other states, including California, specify that children can’t be left in a vehicle in dangerous conditions such as hot weather.

Here’s a map of all the current kids-in-cars laws:

Where is It Illegal to Leave Your Kid in the Car?

20 states have laws about leaving children alone in a car. Click any state for details.

item
No existing law
item
Illegal or unlawful under certain conditions; click state for details
Source: San Francisco State University

var super_simple_map = function(options)
var svg_string = ‘ ‘;
var map_svg = jQuery(svg_string);
var state_specific_area = jQuery(‘#’ + options.container);
state_specific_area.before(map_svg);
var remove_previously_selected = function()
var previously_selected = map_svg.find(‘.selected’);
previously_selected.each(function()
var $this = $(this);
var previous_class = $this.attr(‘class’) else
$this.attr(‘class’, previous_class.replace(‘selected’, ”));

});
}

state_specific_area.hide();
map_svg.find(‘path’).bind(‘click’, function() state_specific_area.hide(); remove_previously_selected(); );
/* FANCY FADE
if you’re feeling fancy, you can apply a fade in and out here instead
replace the two lines above with

state_specific_area.addClass(‘fade-out’)
map_svg.find(‘path’).bind(‘click’, function() state_specific_area.addClass(‘fade-out’).removeClass(‘fade-in’); remove_previously_selected(); );

and search for FANCY FADE below to make a similar change there
If you do this you’ll need to copy our fade-in fade-out css or make your own
*/

var state_specific_headline = jQuery(‘

‘);
state_specific_area.append(state_specific_headline);
var state_specific_body = jQuery(”);
state_specific_area.append(state_specific_body);

var color_map = function(states)
for (var i = 0; i < states.length; i++)
var state = statesi;
var class_to_add = ”;
if (!state’class’)
class_to_add = ‘ blank’;

else
class_to_add = ‘ clickable ‘ + state’class’;

var state_svg = map_svg.find(‘.’ + state.abbr);
var old_class = state_svg.attr(‘class’);
if (typeof old_class !== ‘string’)
//an ancient version of jquery
state_svg.get(0).setAttribute(‘class’,
state_svg.get(0).getAttribute(‘class’) + class_to_add
);
else
var new_class = old_class + class_to_add;
state_svg.attr(‘class’, new_class);

}
}
var place_state_specific_data = function(states)
for (var i = 0; i < states.length; i++)
var state = statesi;
var state_svg = map_svg.find(‘.’ + state.abbr);
state_svg.attr(‘data-state-specific-headline’, state’headline’ );
state_svg.attr(‘data-state-specific-body’, state’body’ );

//this is what happens when you click on a state
state_svg.unbind(‘click’);
state_svg.bind(‘click’, function(event)
//first update the state_specific
var headline = jQuery(event.target).attr(‘data-state-specific-headline’);
var body = jQuery(event.target).attr(‘data-state-specific-body’);
state_specific_headline.html(headline);
state_specific_body.html(body);
state_specific_area.show();
/* FANCY FADE
if you’re feeling fancy, you can apply a fade in and out here instead
replace the line above with

state_specific_area.addClass(‘fade-in’).removeClass(‘fade-out’);

and search for FANCY FADE above to make a similar change there
If you do this you’ll need to copy our fade-in fade-out css or make your own
*/

//give class selected
remove_previously_selected();
var state = jQuery(event.target);
previous_class = state.attr(‘class’);
if (typeof previous_class !== ‘string’)
state.get(0).setAttribute(‘class’,
state.get(0).getAttribute(‘class’) + ‘ selected’
);
else
new_class = previous_class + ‘ selected’;
state.attr(‘class’, new_class);

});
}
}

var tabletop_options =
key: options.key,
callback: function(data)
color_map(data);
place_state_specific_data(data);
if (options.initial_state)
map_svg.find(‘.’ + options.initial_state).click();

},
simpleSheet: true
};
if (options.proxy)
tabletop_options.proxy = options.proxy;

Tabletop.init(tabletop_options);
};

super_simple_map(
container: ‘state_specific_area’,
initial_state: ”,
//proxy: proxy here,
key: ‘0AuHOPshyxQGGdHJSRV9pclNIeFVnZ3dmU0FKdW1rOEE’,
)

States without kids-in-cars laws still may prosecute parents under child endangerment statues, which can be interpreted in wildly different ways. A New Jersey appellate court recently found a woman who’d left her 19-month-old in her car for less than 10 minutes (with the windows cracked) guilty of child abuse. “A parent invites substantial peril when leaving a child of such tender years alone in a motor vehicle that is out of the parent’s sight, no matter how briefly,” wrote a three-judge panel. The ruling, which was mocked in a Newark Star-Ledger op-ed as an embodiment of the “Busybody State,” will be reviewed by the state supreme court.

Lenore Skenazy, the author of Free-Range Kids, argues that public concern for the safety of unattended kids has escalated to the point of hysteria. She has heard dozens of stories of parents chastised by onlookers for, say, stepping away from a car full of kids to drop off a letter, return a shopping cart, or grab a cup of coffee. “The assumption is that any time a child is unsupervised, they are going to die,” Skenazy says, “and that goes 20 times for a kid in a car.”

Ideally, police would arrest parents in such situations only if their kids are clearly in serious danger. But that’s not always what happens. It’s not clear how many parents are arrested for leaving their kids unsupervised in cars, but a search for stories published in the past two years turned up dozens of cases like these:

Bastrop, Louisiana/February 2013: A teenager left an infant in a car on a “cool day” for approximately two minutes while shopping at a clothing store, according to the Bastrop Daily Enterprise. He was arrested and charged with child desertion.

Bettendorf, Iowa/June 2013: A mother left an infant in a car during an early-morning exercise class. According to the police report, the woman repeatedly stepped out of the hour-long class to check on the child. She was arrested and charged with child endangerment.

Yorktown, New York/October 2013: A father left a two-year-old boy in a car at a CVS parking lot for “several minutes,” according to the Daily Somers Voice. He was arrested and charged with endangering the welfare of a child.

Columbus, Indiana/June 2014: A father left a one-year-old and seven-year-old in a car with the windows cracked and the sunroof open for about 10 minutes while shopping at Kroger. He told an officer that he’d left the kids behind because the seven-year-old wasn’t wearing shoes. He was arrested and charged with child neglect.

Jacksonville, Florida/July 2014: A father left a seven-year-old boy in a car parked in the shade with the windows down outside a furniture store where he was a janitor. He was arrested and charged with child neglect. (Florida’s kids-in-cars law only applies to children under the age of six).

While some of these news stories might have omitted important details, a pattern clearly emerges of parents arrested for behavior that falls far short of what’s usually considered child abuse. The risk of a child succumbing to heatstroke when left in a car under normal conditions for 10 or 15 minutes is vanishingly small. “I could not find any instance of any person dying in the car in the course of a short errand,” says Skenazy, who has scrutinized kids-in-cars arrests for years. And adults who intentionally leave their kids in their vehicles for longer periods are not even the biggest problem: 80 percent of kids who die in parked cars were forgotten by their parents or entered the car without their parents’ knowledge.

Adults who park their kids in the shade and roll the windows down or leave the air conditioner running with the keys in the ignition may be accused of leaving tempting targets for kidnappers. But arresting a parent for ignoring the hypothetical risk of a child predator, as happened in Charleston, South Carolina in June, makes about as much sense as jailing her for feeding a kid solid food, letting him ride a bicycle, or allowing him to walk down a flight of stairs. In 1999, the last year for which comprehensive statistics are available, 115 of America’s 72 million children were kidnapped by strangers. (That’s all kidnappings, not just from cars.) That puts the risk of a child getting kidnapped in any given year at 0.0002 percent. A child has a much greater chance of getting struck by lightning at some point in his lifetime.

These arrests seem doubly unfair when they involve parents struggling to make ends meet with no better childcare options. Is the seven-year-old son of the janitor in Jacksonville better off now that his dad is in jail? How about the baby left in a car at 8:00 a.m., shielded from the sun, with the windows cracked and sunroof open, while her mom took a final exam for cosmetology school? Or the mother who left her two kids in the car while she donated blood plasma to get gas money? Arguably, these arrests represent the criminalization of the working poor—though more affluent parents aren’t immune to getting cuffed in the course of buying lattes or picking up the dry cleaning.

Skenazy sees many kids-in-cars laws as counterproductive. “The risk is so tiny that to start legislating on the basis of it would mean that you have to start legislating on everything,” she says. “We focus on the danger of the kid in the parked car, and nobody ever goes through the same paroxysms of fear and hand-wringing and anger when the mom or dad puts the child in the car to drive somewhere, even though that is the number one way children die. It’s in moving cars while they are being driven somewhere by the parents who love them. Why don’t we say to parents: ‘Why did you take them with you? Couldn’t you have found a babysitter and then gone to the grocery? Couldn’t you have had your groceries delivered by a neighbor?'”

“We’re not really concerned about the real ways kids die,” she adds. “We’re concerned about being mad at parents who don’t believe they have to be with their kids every single second of the day.”

So what is a reasonable onlooker supposed to do when confronted with an unattended kid inside a parked car? Consider the context, Skenazy says. Is it a grocery store parking lot where the parent will probably soon return, or an office park where everybody goes to work for the day? Is there another option short of calling the cops? “A Good Samaritan is looking out for the child. But they are also looking out for the mom,” Skenazy says. “They are not the KGB.”

More here:

Should You Freak Out If You See a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Scotts, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Should You Freak Out If You See a Kid Alone in a Parked Car?

Evangelical Christians call on Florida politicians to take climate action

WWJD?

Evangelical Christians call on Florida politicians to take climate action

Paul Simpson

When it comes to using energy, what would Jesus do?

We’re guessing he wouldn’t use more than he needed, and he wouldn’t condemn generations to climate hell by burning fossil fuels when cleaner options were available.

Some Evangelical Christian leaders in Florida are making just that point, calling on Republican politicians in the state to take climate change seriously. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) recently went full-on climate denier, and Florida Gov. Rick Scott (R) is a denier too.

Rev. Mich Hescox, president of the Evangelical Environmental Network, has started a petition drive calling on Scott to make climate change and “creation care” priorities. Here’s an excerpt:

We are failing to keep our air and water clean for our children, contributing to a changing climate that most hurts the world’s poor, and putting Floridians at risk as temperatures and sea levels continue to rise. To meet these challenges, we need leaders who understand our duty to God’s creation and future generations. That’s why we are calling on Gov. Rick Scott to create a plan to reduce carbon pollution and confront the impacts of a changing climate.

And the Tampa Bay Times reports that Hescox and prominent Evangelical pastor Joel Hunter are taking part in a panel discussion tonight titled “Climate Change: Should Christians Care?” From the Times article:

Evangelical leaders in Florida have taken on climate change as a cause and are trying to increase pressure on Gov. Rick Scott to take action, while criticizing Sen. Marco Rubio’s stance on the issue. …

Hunter, who is a spiritual advisor to President Obama, says he’s taken to urging congregants to do their part: Turning off lights that aren’t needed, setting air conditioning at a reasonable temperature, keeping car tires properly inflated.

He said he was neither panicked nor preoccupied with the issue. “But this is part of what I think is the moral responsibility of the church to lead in areas that can benefit and protect people.”

Should Christians care? The answer seems obvious to those who put their flocks before politics.


Source
Evangelicals in Florida turn to climate change and call on Gov. Scott to act, Tampa Bay 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: johnupton@gmail.com.

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

,

Politics

View the original here: 

Evangelical Christians call on Florida politicians to take climate action

Posted in ALPHA, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Scotts, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Evangelical Christians call on Florida politicians to take climate action

Fighting Pollution, Paris Imposes Partial Driving Ban

High pollution levels prompted the authorities to order the limits, and public transport in the French capital remained free for a fourth consecutive day. Originally posted here –  Fighting Pollution, Paris Imposes Partial Driving Ban ; ;Related ArticlesHigh Levels of Pollution Spur Paris to ActionEmails Link Duke Energy and North CarolinaAlbum: Finding Beauty in the Sludge ;

Originally posted here:  

Fighting Pollution, Paris Imposes Partial Driving Ban

Posted in alo, ALPHA, Citadel, Citizen, eco-friendly, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Monterey, ONA, organic, PUR, Scotts, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fighting Pollution, Paris Imposes Partial Driving Ban