Tag Archives: african

Helping the Poor Is the Right Thing to Do, But Maybe Not Much of a Political Winner

Mother Jones

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

I don’t want to make too big a deal out of one comment from one guy, but here’s the response of a minimum-wage worker who got a big increase when Emeryville raised its minimum wage to $14 per hour:

Security guard Kenneth Lofton was among the workers who benefited last year when this East Bay city hiked its hourly minimum wage to nearly $15 for employees at large companies. The jump was almost 70% more than what he used to make in nearby Oakland when he was paid $10 an hour.

….”It’s somewhat better, but not much,” Lofton said Tuesday morning while eating breakfast and manning the security gate at an Emeryville parking lot. “The high cost of living here takes a big bite out of whatever monetary increase you get, so it’s like not getting an increase at all.”

But, he said, “at least they’re trying.”

This is crazy. If Lofton works full time, he’s seeing an increase of $160 per week. Call it $130 or so after taxes. That’s real money. But “it’s like not getting an increase at all.”

Raising the minimum wage—whether to $12, $14, or $15—is the right thing to do. But as a purely political matter, comments like Lofton’s make you wonder if this kind of thing provides any benefits for Democrats. It earns them plenty of annoyance from employers, along with at least some annoyance from consumers who have to pay higher prices, but it’s not clear if this is offset much by increased loyalty from the folks who are helped. Is Lofton more likely to show up at the polls in November because he got a raise? Hard to say.

More here: 

Helping the Poor Is the Right Thing to Do, But Maybe Not Much of a Political Winner

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Helping the Poor Is the Right Thing to Do, But Maybe Not Much of a Political Winner

Donald Trump’s Position on Abortion Changes Yet Again

Mother Jones

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

So what is Donald Trump’s position on abortion? Let us count the ways:

Wednesday:

MATTHEWS: Do you believe in punishment for abortion, yes or no as a principle?

TRUMP: The answer is that there has to be some form of punishment.

MATTHEWS: For the woman?

TRUMP: Yes, there has to be some form.

A few hours later:

Campaign statement: This issue is unclear and should be put back into the states for determination.

A few hours after that:

Campaign statement: The doctor or any other person performing this illegal act upon a woman would be held legally responsible, not the woman….My position has not changed.

Thursday:

“It could be that I misspoke but this was a long, convoluted subject….This was a long discussion…which frankly they don’t run on television because it’s too long.”

(Ed note: This is a lie. Trump’s answer was televised in its entirety.)

Friday morning:

“A question was asked to me. And it was asked in a very hypothetical. And it was said, ‘Illegal, illegal’….But I was asked as a hypothetical, hypothetically. The laws are set now on abortion and that’s the way they’re going to remain until they’re changed….I think it would’ve been better if it were up to the states. But right now, the laws are set….And I think we have to leave it that way.”

A few hours later:

Campaign statement: Mr. Trump gave an accurate account of the law as it is today and made clear it must stay that way now—until he is President. Then he will change the law through his judicial appointments and allow the states to protect the unborn. There is nothing new or different here.

The best part of all this is that when the Trump campaign issues a statement cleaning up after their boss, they always insist that nothing has changed.

No, wait: the best part is when John Dickerson asked Trump if he thought abortion was murder and Trump refused to answer. “I do have my opinions on it. I just don’t think it’s an appropriate forum.” Really? Face the Nation is not an appropriate forum for discussing one of the key political issues of our time? What is?

Continue reading: 

Donald Trump’s Position on Abortion Changes Yet Again

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump’s Position on Abortion Changes Yet Again

Everybody Is Wrong

Mother Jones

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

Atrios is unhappy with how the left is treated:

I’m struck by how everything The Left does is wrong. Not just in terms of policy, but tactics. Running a third party candidate is wrong (I actually agree with this generally!), running in a major party primary is wrong, protesting is wrong, protesting the wrong way is wrong, not protesting is wrong, having a journal of important Lefty ideas is wrong, not catering to the feefees of Real Americans is wrong, proposing legislation is wrong, objecting to racism and sexism is wrong. There’s a longer list, I’m sure, but self-styled “moderates” chastise Lefties no matter what they do.

I dunno. I’m pretty sure we all feel this way. I’m a more moderate liberal than Atrios, but as near as I can tell I’m also wrong about pretty much everything. Hillary is a liar, Glass-Steagall did too cause the economic collapse, nobody votes for a squish, it’s all just privilege, Bernie is going to lead a revolution and his numbers add up just fine, I’m a shill for big corporations, Obama is a total sellout, etc.

On the conservative side, where I can take a more Olympian view of things, it’s pretty obvious the same thing is true. The tea partiers hate the RINOs, the RINOs hate Trump, and the Trumpettes hate everyone. One side are sellouts, the other side is just a bunch of purity mongers.

That’s life. In politics, you’re always wrong according to everyone who’s not you—and the more extreme you get, the wronger you are. That’s the price of being in the arena, or even just being a spectator cheering against the Romans.

Original post: 

Everybody Is Wrong

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Everybody Is Wrong

Is This the Most Astonishing Obamacare Result Ever?

Mother Jones

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

Phil Price points us today to an intriguing chart from the Department of Health and Human Services. It shows readmission rates within 30 days of a hospital stay for Medicare patients—including both “official” readmissions and short-term “observations”—and it’s pretty stunning. When Obamacare passed, readmission rates started to fall dramatically almost instantly. They fell most sharply for a subset of conditions specifically targeted by Obamacare, and by a smaller amount for other conditions. If this is accurate, it means that hospitals could have done something about readmission rates all along, but they just hadn’t bothered. Only after Obamacare provided an incentive to get their readmission rates down did they do anything about it.

So how should we think about this? I’ll confess to some skepticism because the chart is almost too perfect. For four years the readmission rate is dead stable. Then, in a single month between December 2010 and January 2011 it suddenly drops by a full percentage point, and continues dropping for two years. This decline started about eight months after the passage of Obamacare, and it’s hard to believe that hospitals could react that quickly.

Then, the very instant that penalties begin for high readmission rates, everything stabilizes again. Apparently America’s hospitals unanimously decided that once they’d hit a certain level, that was good enough and they wouldn’t bother trying to improve even more.

Maybe. But even for those of us who believe in incentives, this is the damnedest response to a new incentive I’ve ever seen. I guess my advice is to treat this with cautious optimism. It looks like a great result, but as with most Obamacare outcomes, it’s too early to tell for sure how things are going to work out. When we have five or ten years of experience, we’ll start to be able to draw some concrete conclusions. Until then, we can say how things seem to be going so far, but not much more.

Excerpt from:

Is This the Most Astonishing Obamacare Result Ever?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is This the Most Astonishing Obamacare Result Ever?

Donald Trump Wants to Punish Women Who Have Abortions

Mother Jones

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

Sigh. Yet another news cycle for Donald Trump:

Read more:  

Donald Trump Wants to Punish Women Who Have Abortions

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Wants to Punish Women Who Have Abortions

Alarm clock appeals to your good nature to break your snoozing habit. We have a better idea

Alarm clock appeals to your good nature to break your snoozing habit. We have a better idea

By on 28 Mar 2016commentsShare

You awake to the roar of an African lion. Bleary-eyed, you grab your phone and hit snooze to silence the feline’s growls — and in doing so, donate $1 to a conservation fund.

That’s the premise of an app called Zooster, the world’s first “charitable alarm clock.” After the howl of a grey wolf or the squeak of a dolphin wakes you from your beauty sleep, you can either dismiss the alarm or hit snooze. If you do the latter, the app automatically donates your money to a charity that supports the animal whose wake-up call you ignored.

Sure, you might not be prepared to make informed monetary decisions in your state of morning grogginess — but at least it’s for a good cause, right? This leads us to the crucial problem with Zooster: Wouldn’t donating to a terrible cause get you up faster?

Introducing Eschewster: the app that will help you abstain from hitting snooze and donating a dollar. We brainstormed some ideas for the world’s second charitable alarm clock that’ll get you out from under those covers in a hurry:

Get up now or $1 goes to the NRA
Get up now or $1 goes to the travel budget of that dentist who killed Cecil
Get up now or $1 goes to the Rachel Dolezal Center For Diversity
Get up now or $1 goes to expanding George W. Bush’s personal Texas ranch
Get up now or $1 goes to a climate denial group of your choice
Get up now or $1 goes to developing toilet paper even thinner than one-ply
Get up now or $1 goes to Kanye West’s debt reduction fund
Get up now or $1 goes to the making of Paul Blart: Mall Cop 3
Get up now or $1 goes to the initiative to build an even bigger proposed pipeline, Keystone XXL

App developers, take note! Until Zooster’s official launch this fall, we could use some extra incentive to get up in the mornings. It’s not exactly the cock-a-doodle-do that served as the alarm for your agrarian ancestors, but the moral of the story is the same: If you snooze, you lose.

(That is, unless you end up snoozing and donating to Grist.)

Share

Please

enable JavaScript

to view the comments.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Excerpt from: 

Alarm clock appeals to your good nature to break your snoozing habit. We have a better idea

Posted in alo, Anchor, Dolphin, FF, GE, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Alarm clock appeals to your good nature to break your snoozing habit. We have a better idea

Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

Mother Jones

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

As an ardent conservationist, photographer Nick Brandt’s early work showing the majesty of the large animals that once ruled East Africa wasn’t enough. Brandt created three gorgeous photo books focused on African animals in danger of extinction: On This Earth (2005), A Shadow Falls (2009) and Across the Ravaged Land (2013). As a result of that work, what he saw, and what he learned, in 2010 he created the Big Life Foundation with conservationist Richard Bonham. Big Life protects more than 2 million acres of the Amboseli-Tsavo-Kilimanjaro ecosystem in East Africa.

Brandt’s new project, Inherit the Dust, pushes his photography further to help visualize the impact poaching and development has on wildlife. Inherit the Dust helps viewers see areas where elephants, giraffes, lions and other animals once roamed by placing 30-foot panels with photographs in the now industrialized landscapes. You see elephants sauntering through large dumps or under overpasses, giraffes blending in with machinery at mining sites. It’s a striking and effective technique. The book includes 68 images that, though admittedly repetitive in their execution and style, are no less impactful.

Wasteland with Elephant 2015

The work in the book has a beautiful bleakness to it. Looking at the photos alone leaves you feeling depressed. But the images also raise an important issue: Who is Brandt to question—let alone criticize—African nations for developing their countries? Brandt addresses this in the introduction. “I had to stop and ask myself, am I just grieving for the loss of this world because as a privileged white guy from the West, I’ll never again be able to see these animals in the wild?”

He answers by taking a subtle swipe at China for its role in the blink-of-an-eye pace of development in African countries. He also says just because Western nations trampled their environments in the name of progress, that doesn’t mean it’s a model to follow. With his work as a photographer and with the Big Life Foundation, Brandt asserts that environmental consciousness and growing a country’s economy “do not have to be mutually exclusive.”

Brandt punctuates his argument with Inherit the Dust‘s sweeping, somewhat painful panoramic photos.

All photos by Nick Brandt, Courtesy of Edwynn Houk Gallery, New York.

Quarry with Giraffe 2014

Quarry with Lion 2014

Alleyway with Chimpanzee 2014

Road to Factory with Zebra 2014

Underpass with Elephants (Lean Back, Your Life is on Track) 2015

Wasteland with Rhinos & Residents 2015

Behind the scenes: Giraffe & Goats

Crew wrapping elephant panel at sunset, November 2014

Photos from Inherit the Dust are on exhibition at Edwynn Houck Gallery in New York (March 10 to April 30, 2016); Fahey Klein Gallery in Los Angeles (March 24 to May 14); and Camerawork in Berlin (May 12 to July 8). Nick Brandt is a featured speaker at this year’s LOOK3 Festival of Photography in Charlottesville, Virginia (June 13-19).

View original post here – 

Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

Posted in alo, alternative energy, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Sublime Photos of African Wildlife Roaming Their Lost Habitat

One-Man Protest Tries to Sway Conservatives From Trump’s Divisiveness

Mother Jones

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

Most of the attendees of this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference aren’t too worried about Donald Trump’s divisive views on race, as my colleague Pema Levy noted earlier today. But one conference-goer is staging a one-man protest against Trump for undoing the Republican Party’s progress on inclusiveness with his attacks on immigrants and hesitance to distance himself from a former leader of the Ku Klux Klan.

Brian Hawkins stood outside the press check-in booth on Thursday with a homemade sign proclaiming “Veterans Against Trump.” Hawkins is no liberal—he moved to Virginia to work in conservative policy after finishing his Army service last year, and his sign bore stickers declaring “Big Government Sucks” and “I Heart Capitalism”—but he is fully onboard the anyone-but-Trump train, which picked up an adamant Mitt Romney in Utah on Thursday. “As long as Donald Trump continues to speak a message of divisiveness and hatred of others,” Hawkins told me, “he’s not consistent with limited government, free market, and individual liberty principles of conservatism.”

Hawkins is African American and is particularly upset about the way Trump has helped foster the image that that Republican Party relies on racism to appeal to voters. “As a black Republican, I spend my entire adult life defending the Republican Party against charges of racism,” Hawkins said. “And I’m like, ‘Noooo, it doesn’t exist, maybe there’s a few idiots out there but they don’t represent conservative values.’ And then this happens. Completely nativist and cynical viewpoints. I don’t believe that a lot of these voters are racist, but I’m not sure what the appeal is to Trump. But whatever it is, we need to come to our senses, because this man could be president.”

The CPAC crowd has generally been open—or at least outwardly friendly—to his message, Hawkins said. “With this crowd, you get a lot more of the ideological conservatives, who understand that Trump does not represent our values,” he said. Hawkins is now a Rubio supporter after his preferred candidate, Rand Paul, dropped out. But he’s mainly concerned with making sure Trump doesn’t become the nominee.

“I can’t believe that in 2016 that the legitimacy of the KKK is part of our political discussion,” he said. “I thought we had litigated that conversation a generation ago, but here we are discussing it again.”

Hawkins continued, “For me, that’s a lot of the large harm of Trump: Are we going to start having these conversations again? Is the national debate going to be whether or not we should ban Muslims immigrating here? That’s something I don’t want to be a part of. That’s something I don’t want the Republican Party to be a part of.”

Continued here – 

One-Man Protest Tries to Sway Conservatives From Trump’s Divisiveness

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One-Man Protest Tries to Sway Conservatives From Trump’s Divisiveness

Hollywood’s Lack of Diversity Is Costing It Millions. Here’s Why.

Mother Jones

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

The movie industry’s glaring whiteness may be costing Hollywood millions of dollars. A new report from the Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies at the University of California-Los Angeles, found that films with more diverse casts have higher global box-office sales and a better return on investment than their less-diverse counterparts.

The researchers examined 163 films released in 2014, and found that the films with truly diverse casts (there were only eight) also had the highest median global revenues and returns on investment. The median film among the 55 with mostly lily-white casts grossed less than half as much—and barely broke even:

This isn’t happenstance. The diverse films did better because they attracted diverse audiences. Using data from RenTrak—a company that surveys moviegoers—the Bunche Center estimated that nonwhite audiences accounted for 58 percent of ticket sales for the eight most diverse films, and nearly half of all movie tickets sold in the United States. More than a quarter of the total tickets were bought by people of Hispanic origin.

Diversity is good for domestic TV ratings, too, the study found. The most-watched broadcast TV shows—not just in minority households, but also within one of the most coveted age demographics—had majority nonwhite casts. Even the most-watched shows in white households had casts that were 41 to 50 percent nonwhite. And since people of color make up 38 percent of the population, the study points out, it stands to reason that shows reflective of that fact would perform better.

Hollywood, alas, have yet to embrace this reality. For another recent study, researchers at the University of Southern California’s Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism analyzed 109 films from 2014 along with 305 broadcast, cable, and digital (Amazon, Netflix, etc.) TV series across 31 networks from the 2014-15 season. Only 28 percent of all the speaking roles, they found, went to people of color. And then there’s this:

The studios, in short, are leaving a ton of money on the table. “The conventional wisdom has been, you can’t have a film with a minority lead because it’s not going to travel well overseas—and films make most of their money overseas,” says Darnell Hunt, director of the Bunche Center. “What our study is suggesting is that that logic is false.” The same goes for TV, he says: “People want to see themselves reflected in media. You relate better to characters who kind of look like you, who have experiences that resonate with your own.”

The Bunche Center calculated that just 17 percent of broadcast TV shows in the 2013-14 season roughly mirrored America’s population (31 to 40 percent nonwhite). Hunt points to shows like Scandal and How to Get Away With Murder—both created by Shonda Rhimes, who is black—as examples of shows that perform well in part because their casts are diverse. “You have a little bit of something for everybody,” Hunt explains. “And over the long haul, you’re going to make a lot more money if you do that, as opposed to where there may be one token person of color and you’re hoping that’s going to be enough to get the rest of the audience interested.”

So why does Hollywood keep using the same old formula? The biggest reason, Hunt says, is that the creative pipeline is dominated by white guys: “They’re making projects they know how to make, projects that they think are good, with people whom they’re familiar with and whom they think will sell, and so we tend to get more of the same year in, year out—the same types of leads, the same types of stories.”

There’s another behind-the scenes-culprit, too, Hunt notes:

The talent agencies (the “gatekeepers,” Hunt calls them) pitch most of the projects to the networks and film studios—complete with writers, directors, and leads. The top three—Creative Artists Agency, William Morris Endeavor, and United Talent Agency—represented a majority of the credited writers, directors, and actors on 2014 film projects. They also repped the majority of broadcast TV show creators and lead actors for the 2013-2014 season. But minorities make up only around 2 percent of the credited show creators on their rosters, and 6 percent of the credited lead actors. Which means the deal makers have few minority clients to pitch.

Why are the talent rosters so white? Maybe because the agents are. According to the Bunche Center, the agents of the Big Three were 90 percent Caucasian and 68 percent male—hello Ari Gold! The agency partners—who develop business strategy and share in the profits—are amost entirely white and 71 percent male. This lack of diversity, unwittingly or not, dictates the kinds of stories that end up in production, and who we see on the screen. “The question is, how many people of color are involved in the earliest stages?” Hunt says.

The makers of at least one would-be blockbuster hope to break the old mold. We recently talked with the scriptwriter of Marvel’s Black Panther, the forthcoming film about an African superhero, about that studio’s efforts to get more diversity in the pipeline.

Continue at source:

Hollywood’s Lack of Diversity Is Costing It Millions. Here’s Why.

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hollywood’s Lack of Diversity Is Costing It Millions. Here’s Why.

Donald Trump Supporters Are Even Scarier Than You Think. These Numbers Prove It.

Mother Jones

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

In an election season dominated by racist and xenophobic language on the right, Donald Trump distinguishes himself even among his more outspoken Republican challengers. And according to a New York Times analysis of voters, so do his supporters, a majority of whom carry deeply intolerant attitudes toward gay people, Muslims, immigrants, and African Americans.

In fact, the report found 20 percent of Trump’s base disagree with the freeing of slaves after the Civil War, and a staggering 70 percent would still like to see the Confederate flag flying above official grounds in their states.

One-third of Trump’s primary supporters in South Carolina favored “barring gays and lesbians from entering the country.” According to the Times, this is more than twice the support this proposal received by Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio backers.

Another third of his supporters think Japanese internment was an appropriate measure.

The analysis, which used polling data from recent YouGov and Public Policy Polling results, paints a disturbing portrait of the kind of voters with whom Trump’s inflammatory messages are resonating. It could in part explain how the Republican fron-trunner has managed to clear yet another primary victory in Nevada this week.

For more on how Trump successfully tapped into South Carolina’s angry and xenophobic voters, read our deep-dive on how the state became Trump country.

Read More:  

Donald Trump Supporters Are Even Scarier Than You Think. These Numbers Prove It.

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Supporters Are Even Scarier Than You Think. These Numbers Prove It.