Tag Archives: angeles

California Water Bill Rewards Farmers, Screws Environment

Mother Jones

A controversial bill that would override environmental rules to supply farmers with more water from California’s ecologically sensitive Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta sailed through the House of Representatives on Thursday. The bill may come up for a vote as soon as today in the Senate, where it is being championed by California senior Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and powerful ally of agribusiness interests.

California’s other Democratic US senator, Barbara Boxer, staunchly opposes the bill and has threatened to filibuster it, potentially keeping her fellow senators from leaving for the year. It would be a dramatic last act for Boxer, an ally of environmental groups who is retiring this year after working closely with Feinstein in the Senate for 24 years. “I guess that’s how it goes,” Boxer said on the Senate floor this morning. “You come in fighting, you go out fighting.”

The contentious California provisions, which also include policies that would make it easier to build dams, were added on Monday by Bakersfield Republican Kevin McCarthy as a rider to the sprawling Water Infrastructure Improvements for the Nation Act, a popular bipartisan bill that would also provide aid to Flint, Michigan. The provisions reflect negotiations between Feinstein, California’s 14 Republican lawmakers, and a handful of Democrats.

The bill represents the culmination of a fight that has been brewing over the course of California’s six-year drought. It pits Central Valley farmers and Los Angeles area homeowners against environmental interests, fishermen, and farmers in the Delta region east of the San Francisco Bay Area. The Los Angeles Times‘ Sarah D. Wire summarizes the conflict. (Today she is following the hearings live on Twitter):

At issue is that the measure would allow officials at state and federal water management agencies to exceed the environmental pumping limits to capture more water during storms. Those limits have been a pet peeve of water contractors, including the Westlands Water District and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, which complained of water supplies “lost to the sea” during last winter’s heavy rains.

Federal biologists have said certain levels of water flowing through the delta are vital for native fish, which have suffered devastating losses during the state’s prolonged drought, and help maintain the quality of the delta’s freshwater supplies. In short, if fish are determined to have enough water, or are not near the pumps, the excess water could be sent to the south.

Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael) characterized it as placing political wants above science to go around federal law.

“When an act of Congress specifically supersedes peer-reviewed biological opinions that are the very mechanism of how the Endangered Species Act gets implemented, that is a grave undermining of the act,” Huffman said.

Feinstein, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee’s powerful energy and water panel, typically serves as the key negotiator on California-related water bills. Progressives often accuse her of ignoring environmental interests in favor of agricultural ones, particularly the billionaire California farmers Stewart and Lynda Resnick, who use more water than all the homes in Los Angeles combined. For more on Feinstein’s ties with the Resnicks, read our profile of them here.

Link to original:

California Water Bill Rewards Farmers, Screws Environment

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Water Bill Rewards Farmers, Screws Environment

McDonald’s Asked Teachers to Serve Fries for Free. Now the Teachers Are Fighting Back.

Mother Jones

Ah, McTeacher’s Night—the occasion for kids to watch their teachers peddle burgers, fries, and sugary drinks. In these tie-ups between schools and the fast-food giant, teachers encourage their students and their families to visit a McDonald’s outlet on a particular evening, and then work behind the counter (uncompensated) in McDonald’s t-shirts. A portion of the night’s sales are donated to the school. The above video depicts one such event held for an Illinois high school in 2012.

Sound like an edifying spectacle for youth? A labor union called United Teachers Los Angeles thinks not. In a blistering letter recently published in its union newspaper, UTLA vice president Cecily Myart-Cruz lays out the case against McTeacher’s Night. She claims that the events amount to “predatory marketing of fast food to children,” “exploits the trust between teachers and students to promote its junk food,” and “often raise as little as $1 per student, a ridiculously small amount compared to the time teachers must spend participating and recruiting their students to attend.”

In an emailed statement, a McDonald’s spokesperson defended the program:

McTeacher’s Night is an optional community-based program that supports schools seeking financial support for initiatives like sports equipment, band uniforms, iPads for the classroom, field trips and other programs. It is not a corporate mandated program, but a way our company-owned and franchised restaurants support the communities they serve at the request of and in partnership with local schools.

Like the sweet sauce that tops a soft-serve sundae, the LA teachers union critique comes after a campaign launched last year to kibosh McTeacher’s Nights, led by advocacy groups Corporate Accountability International and Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood and and supported by 50 national, state and local teachers unions.

A spokesperson for Corporate Accountability International pointed out to me in an email that McTeacher’s Night events contradict sponsorship guidelines (downloadable here) issued by the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) in 2011. The guidelines state: “Keep in mind we may not accept donations from or promote organizations that market, sell or produce products that may be harmful to children including but not limited to, tobacco, alcohol, firearms, gambling, or high fat and calorie foods and drinks.”

Using Freedom of Information Act requests, Corporate Accountability International and Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood have documented more than 120 McTeacher nights in greater LA since the start of 2013, including four this year. Their research suggests that the funds these events raise tend to be paltry. They obtained fundraising totals for around 30 LA-area McTeacher nights, for which the cash haul ranged from $67 to $1,000. Nationwide, the groups have counted more than 600 McTeacher Nights since 2013.

On Monday, the UTLA announced a formal policy “calling on McDonald’s to end these disrespectful marketing gimmicks once and for all,” Myart-Cruz said in a statement.

Like a class clown who doesn’t know when to stop, Ronald McDonald would appear to be no longer welcome as a fixture in LA public schools.

Credit:

McDonald’s Asked Teachers to Serve Fries for Free. Now the Teachers Are Fighting Back.

Posted in alo, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on McDonald’s Asked Teachers to Serve Fries for Free. Now the Teachers Are Fighting Back.

Expand Social Security? Sure, For Low Earners.

Mother Jones

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

Here is Steven Hill in the Los Angeles Times today:

The real problem with Social Security is not a shortfall but that its payout is so meager. Social Security is designed to replace only about 35% of wages at retirement, yet most Americans need twice that amount to live decently. With the other components of the retirement system looking wobbly, and with incomes low, Social Security is too skimpy to be the nation’s single pillar retirement system.

The obvious solution is to expand it. There are numerous revenue streams that would allow the nation to greatly increase the monthly payout for the 43 million Americans who receive retirement benefits….First, we should eliminate the Social Security payroll cap….stop exempting investment income….scrap income tax shelters for wealthy households and businesses….end or reduce tax breaks for private retirement accounts, including 401(k)s and IRAs….Just these four revenue streams would come close to raising the $662 billion necessary to double Social Security’s monthly benefit.

This kind of thing pisses me off. It may be true that Social Security is “designed” to replace only 35 percent of wages at retirement, but that statement is wildly misleading. Here are the latest replacement rates for future retirees according to the Congressional Budget office:

Low earners: 82 percent
Median earners: 44 percent
High earners: 22 percent

There are two things to note here. First, replacement rates have steadily gone up for low earners and will keep going up in the future. Scheduled replacement rates for low earners are about 63 percent for those born in the 1960s; 79 percent for those born in the 1980s; and 82 percent for those born in the 2000s.

Second, and more important, replacement rates are far higher for low earners than for higher earners. This is exactly how it should be. Low earners typically have very few sources of other retirement income and rely almost entirely on Social Security. If I had my druthers, Social Security would replace 100 percent of working-age income for low earners.

But higher earners don’t need those high replacement rates because they have other sources of retirement income: savings, 401(k) accounts, IRAs, pensions, etc. Obviously this differs from person to person, but SSA estimates that on average, the total replacement rate for median earners and above is 80 percent or higher (Table 11 here).

Expanding Social Security to double its monthly benefit is dumb. It would be a massively expensive solution to a problem that doesn’t exist. We should instead focus on increasing benefits for the low earners who need it. That would cost far less and solve a problem that really needs solving.

Link to original: 

Expand Social Security? Sure, For Low Earners.

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Expand Social Security? Sure, For Low Earners.

Fellow Americans, It’s Time to Stop Panicking About Zika

Mother Jones

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

On a recent afternoon, in a temperature-controlled room at the University of California-Davis, epidemiologist Chris Barker shows me the life stages of Aedes aegypti, the Zika-carrying mosquito that’s sowing so much panic and confusion. The barely discernable eggs clinging to paper strips. The rice-length larvae, sensitive to light and vibration, wriggling spasmodically in their tanks. The comma-shaped pupae, skittering about in covered baths. And finally, the adults, clinging to the sides of small containers where they feast on sugar water and warm sheep’s blood so the females can nourish their batches of eggs. These particular mosquitoes are not harboring any disease—that would require a high-security biolab—but even this insectary has a screened, air-lock-style foyer and wall-mounted bug zappers with glowing tubes to deal with any fugitives. “Aegypti are not present in nature here” in Northern California, Barker says, “so we certainly don’t want them getting out.”

Nor do our legislators in DC, some of whom have been making frightening statements as they debate how much money to throw at the Zika problem. “We shouldn’t be taking 10 days off as a dangerous virus threatens this nation,” said Harry Reid, the Senate minority leader, rebuking his GOP colleagues recently for leaving for spring recess without passing a Zika bill. “And it is threatening us.”

It’s “a life-threatening issue,” stressed Rep. Joe Crowley (D-NY), and an impending “healthcare catastrophe,” added Rep. Xavier Becerra (D-Calif.). Some Southern Republicans are sounding the alarm, too: “Zika’s shadow is spreading too quickly in Florida,” said Vern Buchanan, the first GOP senator to support the White House’s full $1.9 billion funding request. “The rest of the country should keep in mind that summer is coming and so are the mosquitoes. Congress needs to act quickly.” Erstwhile GOP presidential hopeful and Florida Sen. Marco Rubio piled on as well. “It is just a matter of days, weeks, hours before you will open up a newspaper or turn on the news and it will say that someone in the continental United States was bitten by a mosquito and they contracted Zika,” he said. “When that happens, then everyone is going to be freaked out.”

Rubio is right: This will almost certainly happen at some point, and people will be freaked out. But just how freaked out should we be? To answer that question, and find some perspective on our collective Zika fears, I took a trip out to UC-Davis to meet with Barker and other scientists who actually study mosquitoes and the nasty diseases they carry.

We’ve actually known about Zika for a long time—it was discovered in Africa in 1947 and named after Uganda’s Zika Forest. The biology of the mosquito that’s spreading it is pretty well understood. “Aegypti is the lab rat of the mosquito world,” explains Barker, who also manages California’s surveillance lab for mosquito-borne viruses. Yet until recently, we didn’t worry much about Zika, because outbreaks were rare and the virus seemed pretty benign. Eighty percent of infected people never get sick at all, and for most of the 20 percent who do, it’s not too bad. “Zika is a relatively mild disease—fever, aches, pains, rash, conjunctivitis, and done,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, who is overseeing vaccine efforts in the United States, told me recently.

But last year, as a Zika outbreak took off in Brazil and spread rapidly across South and Central America, doctors began seeing an unusual number of microcephaly cases—babies born with tiny heads and often severe brain damage. Microcephaly is caused by other things, too, but it’s rare, and Zika seemed like an obvious suspect. Subsequent experiments yielded alarming revelations about how the virus might be gutting the brains of infants. And the bad news kept coming: “First it was, ‘Is it really causally associated with the congenital abnormalities of microcephaly?'” Fauci said, “Then all of a sudden we definitely know: The first cohort study showed a 29 percent incidence, which is really very high. Then we find out the virus destroys neurological tissue very aggressively. Now, if you ever wanted to compound and confound the spread of an outbreak that already is amazingly strange—the first mosquito-borne virus that results in a congenital abnormality—then you find out it’s sexually transmitted!!”

It didn’t stop there. Scientists have now linked Zika to an increase in Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare condition in which the protein sheath that insulates nerve cells and ensures proper brain function gets eaten away. After learning of this new wrinkle, Fauci recalled, “I was saying, ‘My goodness. Every time you wake up, there’s something else that’s bad about it.'”

As of May 25, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, we’ve had 591 confirmed Zika cases in the United States, nearly all of them people bitten by mosquitoes while traveling in Zika-afflicted regions. New York had the most cases (127), followed by Florida (121), California (44), Texas (36), and Pennsylvania (19). Only one case is associated with Guillain-Barré. Eleven of them were from having sex with a person who’d been sick with Zika. The CDC notes that 168 pregnant women have either tested positive for the virus itself or harbor antibodies against it—which means they were exposed at some point, but not necessarily while pregnant. Notably, none of the cases resulted from someone being bitten by domestic mosquitoes.

There’s much we still don’t know about Zika. For instance, we don’t know how high the risk of Guillain-Barré might be in those infected, or how the virus causes it. There’s some evidence that Zika may stimulate an immune response that prompts the body to attack its own brain cells. (If true, that could present complications for vaccine developers, since you obviously don’t want to make a shot that produces such a response.)

We also haven’t determined whether the fetus is at risk if a pregnant woman is infected with Zika but shows no symptoms. Or whether an asymptomatic person can transmit the virus through sex. “So far, the only sexual transmissions that we know of are people who transmitted it when they were symptomatic or very soon after,” says Fauci, who has research teams looking into both questions. “In fact, the ones that are well documented had a rash when they transmitted it. But that’s maybe just the tip of the iceberg.”

Before heading out to meet Barker and the others, I hopped on the phone for a little Mosquito 101 with Bill Reisen, a veteran UC-Davis mosquito guy and editor of the Journal of Medical Entomology.

Most of the world’s roughly 3,500 known mosquito species, Reisen points out, are pretty meaningless to us humans. And they’re not much interested in us, either. Most mosquitoes are fairly host-specific—consider the genus Uranotaenia, which bites only frogs. Here in the United States, we’re only concerned with the fewer than 10 species that share our habitat, suck our blood, and can spread human diseases. The mosquito of the hour, the one whose life cycles Barker showed me, is capable of transmitting not only Zika, but the related viruses that cause yellow fever, Chikungunya, and dengue fever.

Why would so few species cause problems, yet one be responsible for so many? Well, some mosquitoes are simply better suited as carriers. Biologically speaking, a lot has to happen within their brief life span—a few weeks for aegypti—for a virus to cycle through the insect and into its saliva. (When the female mosquito sticks its proboscis through a person’s skin, some of that saliva gets transferred into our blood.) With malaria, which once was a big problem in the United States, the process is even trickier. “The mosquito must ingest both male and female parasites, which mate in the mosquito and then form a stage that burrows through the gut wall,” Reisen says. “It’s a marvel it works at all.”

UC-Davis virologist Lark Coffey told me that even at the peak of West Nile—a virus that has killed about 1,900 Americans since 2000 and is primarily spread in the United States by mosquitoes of the Culex genus—less than 1 percent of the insects carried the infection. But when zillions are hatching, that’s enough to cause outbreaks. “It’s a numbers game,” Reisen says.

Aedes aegypti is doing pretty well for itself, numbers-wise, around the world. And the mosquito is not, as Sen. Buchanan put it, “coming”—it’s here. Aegypti is well established along the southern border, particularly in the Gulf states, and in recent years it has become entrenched in the greater Los Angeles area. Its cousin Aedes albopictus—which can transmit all the same viruses, albeit less competently—shares and expands upon that turf. On the East Coast, albopictus can range as far north as New England.

These are not native species. Aegypti is an African mosquito that first caught a lift to the New World on slave ships, according to Reisen. Both aegypti and albopictus (a.k.a. the Asian Tiger Mosquito), have continued to spread around the globe via cargo vessels, often hitching a ride in used tires—an ideal breeding spot. Some 15 years ago, albopictus began repopulating Los Angeles, where scientists thought it had been all but eradicated by conventional control methods—insecticides and so forth. “The way they were getting in was this plant,” Barker says, pulling out a small container of Lucky Bamboo, an Asian import shipped in water. “That’s a lovely way to send mosquitoes around the world.” The tricky devils even can get around by slipping into a car and popping out somewhere else—we’re their chauffeurs.

Aedes aegypti has proven particularly hard to stamp out. Unlike the malaria mosquitoes that breed in marshes and other bodies of water where they are fairly easy targets for insecticides and such, aegypti has evolved to thrive in urban areas. In the United States, it’s a backyard-dweller, laying eggs in lawn drains, construction rubble, trash, those little saucers we place under flowerpots—it will happily breed in the filthiest of conditions, Coffey says. The mosquito bites night and day, feeds almost exclusively on people, and has even picked up an odorant receptor gene that makes us humans an especially attractive target.

The hard part is finding them. Truck-mounted neighborhood spraying of insecticides, which keeps some mosquitoes under control, doesn’t penetrate aegypti habitats. You have to go onto people’s properties, and that requires cooperation from renters and homeowners. “You would go to a very nicely landscaped home, and they’ve got endless flowerpots with little cups on the bottom and sprinklers hitting the pots, so these were constantly wet. You’ve got birdbaths and people with rain barrels, saving water,” says Reisen, who has done door-to-door mosquito surveys in Los Angeles. “You go from that pristine environment to people who are hoarders and have endless garbage in their backyards. You find commodes, wheelbarrows full of water.” Next stop: “Homes with Jacuzzis and swimming pools that are no longer maintained, and they’re just a filthy mess full of mosquitoes.”

Multiply that by the “something like 5 million parcels” under the jurisdiction of the greater Los Angeles vector control district,” Reisen says. Even if you had the manpower to clean up those properties, you’d need the homeowners to keep them clean. Otherwise, “six months later, you’ve got the same problem you started with—it’s just endless.”

A massive effort during the 1960s nearly eliminated aegypti from multiple countries in South and Central America, “but it required huge, almost military-type campaigns of going door to door, as well as the use of the new miracle, DDT,” Reisen says. In a 2001 New Yorker profile, Malcolm Gladwell described the man in charge, Fred Soper, as “the General Patton of entomology,” who “seemed equally capable of browbeating man or mosquito.” But Soper’s tyrannical campaigns came to an end, and now, Reisen says, “we’re back probably worse than we were before.”

We’re worse off, in part, because mosquitoes manage to evolve their way around just about every chemical we throw at them—including the most effective pesticide, DDT—now banned in the United States and many other countries because of its effects on wildlife. In his office at UC-Davis, geneticist Greg Lanzaro shows me how the African malaria mosquito Anopheles coluzzii interbred with rival species Anopheles gambiae, and in the process obtained a gambiae gene that bolsters its defenses against the insecticides used on protective bed nets. “That’s the kind of genetic trickery these mosquitoes are capable of,” Lanzaro says. As for California mosquitoes, Reisen adds, they basically laugh off many of the organochlorides, organophosphates, and pyrethroid compounds in our chemical arsenal. For insect populations, the adage that what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger is particularly apt.

This is some scary stuff, right? And yet, we’ve not seen any Zika transmission by mosquitoes in the United States. To hear the politicians talk, you’d think aegypti are preparing to swarm across the border from points south—tiny illegal immigrants harboring deadly diseases. In reality, the typical aegypti mosquito probably flies only a few hundred meters in its lifetime, Coffey says. A local outbreak would have to begin with a local mosquito biting a Zika-infected traveler and then passing the virus to someone else. And this will probably happen, Fauci told me, because we see it happen with Chikungunya and dengue.

Then again, when was the last time you worried about Chikungunya or dengue—or malaria, for that matter? Those diseases are far scarier than Zika. WHO estimates (conservatively) that malaria infected at least 214 million people last year and killed 438,000, mostly children under five. Then there’s dengue, named from the Swahili phrase ki denga pepo (“a sudden overtaking by a spirit”)—which tells you something about how painful it is. Each year, dengue, also called “breakbone fever,” infects 50-100 million people, sickens about 70 percent of them—half a million very severely—and kills tens of thousands. Brazil, in addition to its Zika problem, is experiencing a record dengue epidemic. Health authorities there tallied 1.6 million cases and 863 deaths last year—and the 2016 toll is on track to be worse. Zika is seldom fatal.

In the United States, over the past six decades, we’ve had 63 small malaria outbreaks caused by local mosquitoes biting stricken travelers and passing the parasite along. The first locally acquired Chikungunya case popped up in Florida in 2014. Our most recent dengue outbreak—in which only a few infections were locally acquired (presumably by mosquitoes)—occurred in Brownsville, Texas, more than a decade ago. These outbreaks have been small and seldom in part because Americans in the South spend a lot of their time in screened, air-conditioned spaces, which minimizes contact with the mosquitoes. (The advent of television is credited as a factor in the decline of malaria in the United States.) Also, compared with the countries that have a lot of infections, American public-health authorities are pretty adept at spotting outbreaks and quashing them before they get out of control.

Only one of the six scientists I interviewed was concerned that Zika might take off in the continental United States. “You would never see Zika virus, Chikungunya virus, or dengue virus sweep across the country the way West Nile did, even in the regions where these mosquitoes are,” Barker told me. “Because that’s just not how it works in our country.”

West Nile is different, because the Culex mosquitoes that spread it also bite birds, which serve as a permanent reservoir for new mosquitoes to be infected with the virus. But health officials kept the dengue and Chikungunya outbreaks in check by using aggressive mosquito control, and by convincing locals to apply repellent, stay indoors with air conditioning, and eliminate standing water from their properties. “So even though I never say never,” Fauci says, “I do not think we are going to have a widespread Zika outbreak in this country.”

It will be a few years, at least, before a vaccine is widely available. In the meantime, the only way Americans are likely to get Zika is by traveling in a Zika zone. If you’re pregnant, or planning on it, you’d be wise to stay far away, and use protection if you’re sleeping with someone who’s been on Zika turf recently. Americans heading to the Olympics in Rio—which has Brazil’s highest infection rates—can protect themselves with long pants, long sleeves, and plenty of DEET.

In the near term, Coffey says, eliminating aegypti is going to be “untenable.” Until we come up with a cutting-edge genetic fix, the holy grail, she says, is an effective single-dose vaccine: “All you ever have to do is see a person once.” The mosquitoes? They’re forever.

Link to original: 

Fellow Americans, It’s Time to Stop Panicking About Zika

Posted in alo, ATTRA, bamboo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, oven, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Fellow Americans, It’s Time to Stop Panicking About Zika

Meet the Star of Judd Apatow’s New Netflix Series "Love"

Mother Jones

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

It sounds so familiar. Nice guy meets self-destructive girl. Guy falls for girl, who refuses to be loved. Yet, Love, the new Netflix dark comedy created and co-written by director Judd Apatow, comedian Paul Rust, and Girls writer Lesley Arfin, transcends the usual clichés with complex, smartly written characters.

Rust, 34, stars as Gus, an aspiring TV writer who finds himself suddenly single. Mickey, played by Community star Gillian Jacobs, is a party girl as desperate for love as she is unhinged. Hilarious, tender, and laced with moments of cringe-worthy humiliation, the series is a darkly funny and fairly realistic portrayal of the awkwardness of the human experience—an introspective look at two lost souls as they navigate Los Angeles and bumble through their difficult intimacy in a painfully relatable way.

Rust needed his sense of humor growing up Catholic in Le Mars, Iowa (population 9,826). In his early 20s, after graduating from the University of Iowa, he moved to Los Angeles, where he began acting and performing with the Upright Citizens Brigade Theater and writing on shows from The Very Funny Show to Arrested Development, and the popular podcast Comedy Bang! Bang! He also landed a leading role in the 2009 comedy film I Love You, Beth Cooper.

His other recent escapade—not counting his marriage to co-writer Arfin last October—has been co-writing Pee-wee’s Big Holiday (a.k.a. Paul Reubens’ big comeback), a film due for release March 4. I caught up with Rust to talk Catholicism, how parking affects LA hookups, and why he named his old band—he plays guitar, too—Don’t Stop Or We’ll Die.

Check out the Love trailer, and then we’ll talk.

Mother Jones: Okay, let’s have you describe these characters.

Paul Rust: Mickey is from New Jersey. She works at a satellite radio station, and she’s a cool person. She dresses cool and has great taste. She’s also struggling with addiction and substance abuse problems, but deep down she realizes she’s at a point where she doesn’t want to keep doing that, and she wants to improve her life.

Gus is a guy from South Dakota who’s an on-set tutor for child actors. He’s a people pleaser who’s motivated by his fears and anxieties. The two of them meet, and for Gus there’s this sort of attraction: “Maybe if I date this person who’s dangerous, it’ll get me out of my shell.” Conversely, Mickey is like, “I feel reckless, so maybe if I date this person who seems to be grounded, that would give me something I’m missing.” In the show we’re trying to deconstruct that idea. Mickey, under her rough exterior, there’s actually something very tender about her. And for Gus, somebody who looks sensitive on the outside is maybe angrier on the inside.

MJ: How does Los Angeles itself shape the narrative?

PR: Just the way LA is laid out—30 miles of disparate neighborhoods—adds to the loneliness of the characters. There’s a lot more space to feel isolated in. In Los Angeles, you have to meet the person, then walk out separately to your own cars, and follow the person to their neighborhood, and then pray that street parking isn’t going to mess things up. I think a lot of nights together have been spoiled by somebody not being able to find a parking spot and saying, “Why don’t we just go home?”

MJ: What did comedy mean to you as a kid?

PR: Growing up in a small town, in the Midwest, and Catholic: Those are sort of three layers of repression. My mom was my English teacher in high school. So to be able to bend the rules and be the class clown and get to take on my religion, my mom, and my town all at the same time was glorious. I think the desire to be funny was a mixture of wanting to be liked but also wanting to throw your elbows a bit. If you’re cracking a joke in school, it’s sort of anti-authority, but it’s in the nicest, “Please like me!” way.

MJ: Do you mine your upbringing for comedic fodder?

PR: In the writers’ room, we like this idea that Gus presents himself as a nice person, but is it really nice if it’s coming from a hostile place? I’m sure that had to do with my upbringing in the church. You do feel these kinds of hostile feelings, and it’s like, as long as you put these feelings way down, it means you took care of it. But I gotta say, the Catholic Church has churned out a lot of great artists and directors and actors, so if that’s all they do, that’s fine by me. If they’re good at churning out tortured artists, that’s great! Laughs.

MJ: The show almost seems to debunk the “nice guy” archetype, because Gus seems so nice, and then he’ll do things that really aren’t.

PR: The term we use is, “How do we scuff up Gus?” Because Mickey is presented as this self-destructive person, we were really conscious of not wanting this to be the story of, “Hey, if this girl could just realize to accept the love of this kind man, who could solve all her problems and fix her…” To suggest that that’s not healthy was important to us.

MJ: So, what’s it like co-writing with your wife? I mean, what if you had a fight the night before?

PR: Because I think so highly of Lesley and her writing, I fully trust her take and her opinion. She’s very sharp and intuitive. If there is a disagreement, we can usually work through it because the relationship stuff is the real work. Anything to do with the show is fun and entertainment.

MJ: In a recent interview, you said you didn’t want to call this show “honest,” but maybe “truthful.” What did you mean?

PR: Maybe it’s splitting hairs. I think “honest” sometimes gets used to describe a real depiction of real life. I don’t think that’s necessarily what we’re doing. We created these fake characters and we’re just trying to figure out what they would do in situations they enter into. We don’t want people to necessarily think that Mickey and Gus are related to Lesley and me, because it’s not true and I don’t want people to think that. If I heard there was a new show, and the creators were writing about how they met, I would be like, “Pass! No thanks.” Instead of watching, I’m going to go off and barf.

Netflix

MJ: Well, how much do the characters mirror your own relationship?

PR: It was just sort of a jumping-off point. These characters were more based on the years before we met each other—we didn’t really meet each other as damaged as they are in the show. Judd, correctly thinking, said that more sparks will be able to fly if these people are in more toxic times in their lives. If Lesley and I did a show that was really about us, it would be extremely boring.

MJ: Lesley has been open about her past struggles with addiction. Has it been difficult for her to revisit the subject as a writer?

PR: I think because she considers Mickey an older part of herself that’s far, far back in her history, it’s not particularly challenging for her.

MJ: I know you lost a friend, the comedian Harris Wittels, to heroin last year. Has that rubbed off on your writing?

PR: Really the effect is all life-affirming stuff. You know, Harris was one of the funniest, most creative people I know. The greatest quality Harris had was his ability to—he would tweet stuff that I would never be able to admit to another person, let alone tweet to thousands of people. This is a guy who really held the torch for being honest.

MJ: You and Harris had a band together called Don’t Stop Or We’ll Die. You also had a band with comedian Charlyne Yi, who appears in Love, called Glass Beef. Where did these band names come from?

PR: Glass Beef came from just putting these words together. We had different understandings: Charlyne saw it as a piece of beef with chunks of glass in it, and I saw it as a glass figurine of beef. Laughs. Don’t Stop Or We’ll Die came from a line in Back to the Future that’s often misheard by people. There’s a part where Michael J. Fox tries to flag down a car, and an old couple starts slowing down, and the elderly woman says to her husband, “Don’t stop Orvel. Drive!” A lot of people think she’s saying, ‘Don’t stop or we’ll die,’ which is such a hilarious, bizarre thing to say to somebody. We started performing music with comedy because it makes it a little easier to get a response that doesn’t require a wig and a funny costume and an accent.

MJ: The archetypal “struggling” TV characters are often in their 20s, but Mickey and Gus are in their early 30s. Does that make for richer comic fodder?

PR: A lot of the day-to-day, minute-to-minute struggles are a bit more taken care of, so it allows you to start asking more existential questions like, “What do I want in life? What’s going to make me happy?” In your 20s, you’re checking your bank account to make sure you’re not broke. In your 30s, you’re looking at yourself and realizing you’re broken.

MJ: What was it like working on Pee-wee’s Big Holiday with Judd and Paul?

PR: Awesome. Paul sensibility is silly and fantastical, Judd’s is more grounded in reality and real feelings. So much of what Judd writes about is some sort of stunted adolescence, and there’s no greater poster boy for that than Pee-wee Herman. Judd is just such a fan of comedy that he likes all parts of it. It was a dream getting to work with Paul because even before I started working with him, I considered Pee-wee’s Big Adventure my favorite comedy. I would try to write a script like that, and I couldn’t, and it would be terrible.

By luck and chance, I was able to get paired with Paul. And I basically got a tutorial in how to write a script like that. The thing I learned most from him is that the more simple and straightforward and stripped down something is, the better it can be. If I took 25 words to write something, Paul could write it in five. His gift of simplicity and minimalism is really what I learned, and I consider him a friend now. As a 10-year-old fan, getting to be friends with Pee-wee is a dream come true.

The first season of Love is now available on Netflix for your binge-watching pleasure.

View original – 

Meet the Star of Judd Apatow’s New Netflix Series "Love"

Posted in Accent, alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Star of Judd Apatow’s New Netflix Series "Love"

Why San Francisco’s "Frisco" Debate Will Never, Ever Die

Mother Jones

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

When they’re not arguing about lettuce in burritos or their love-hate relationship with tech, San Franciscans are duking it out over “Frisco”—the 165-year-old nickname for The City that inspires a remarkable amount of vehemence. For many years, “Don’t call it ‘Frisco'” was a kind of shibboleth for SF natives. But a backlash to anti-“Frisco” hegemony has been growing, culminating with today’s Buzzfeed-sponsored Call It Frisco Day. In the interests of teaching the controversy, here’s a timeline that will provide plenty of ammo for partisans on both sides of the “F word” debate.

Late 1840s:

The earliest recorded uses of “Frisco” in writing. Folk etymologist Peter Tamony theorized that this syncope was in widespread use during the Gold Rush, having originated as “an Americanization of ‘El Fresco,’ the name of Mexican gold seekers for the ‘refreshing, cool’ city to which miners sojourned after long, hot months in the Sierra foothills.” (Though he also speculated that it’s related to the Old English term frip-socn, meaning “refuge of peace.”)

1872
Beloved local eccentric/crank Emperor Joshua Norton I bans use of the word “Frisco.” Or not: See below.
The Emperor strikes back

Wikipedia

Emperor Norton supposedly declared “Frisco” off-limits with this 1872 decree: “Whoever after due and proper warning shall be heard to utter the abominable word ‘Frisco,’ which has no linguistic or other warrant, shall be deemed guilty of a High Misdemeanor, and shall pay into the Imperial Treasury as penalty the sum of twenty-five dollars.”
Disappointingly for anti-“Frisco” purists, this decree is likely apocryphal. The earliest citation I could find is in David Warren Ryder’s 1939 biography of Norton, which offers no sourcing.

1877

The Dictionary of Americanisms says that “Frisco” is used “throughout California.”

1882

The “feverish campaign against ‘Frisco'” can be traced back to this year, according to lexicographer Allen Walker Read.

1895

The New York Sun relates a humorous anecdote about a San Franciscan with a complaint:

“Easterners call my city out of its name with malicious purpose, and that none of them have been hanged for it shows that we are forbearing people beyond all others. They call my city”—the speaker choked at the word—”they call it ‘Frisco!’…Ding ’em sir, they seem to think they are doing something pleasant and smart; yet every San Franciscan loathes, with a murderous loathing, to hear his city so called.”

1904

“No, we don’t call it Frisco, that’s tenderfoot talk,” states an old-timer in an article in The Reader.

Digital Sheet Music Collection

1906

“Anyone who goes about the country asserting that his home is in ‘Frisco’ may at once be set down as an imposter,” says The Advance.

1908

“There never was and never will be a ‘Frisco,'” asserts the San Francisco Call: “Neither before the fire nor since has this shabby abbreviation, born of vulgarity and laziness, ever been tolerated in this neighborhood. Of course, the name is applied in a merely heedless spirit; but to the ears of the true San Franciscan it is offensive.”

1912

The federal government decides not to refer to the city by “the flippant ‘Frisco'” anymore: “The term ‘Frisco’ as a name for San Francisco, employed by nonresidents, is objected to by a majority of the citizens of San Francisco and is never used by them. The term has been condemned by the press and civic organizations…” • The Arizona Republican ascribes “Frisco” to telegraph operators and traveling salesmen who condensed “a pretty long name for one who is in a hurry.” (It also claims that Los Angeles is known by the shorthand “Loss.”) • The San Francisco Chronicle editorializes, “There is only one San Francisco in the country, and to call it ‘Frisco’ is not only erroneous, but substitutes a rather ordinary name for a very beautiful one.”

1913

Poet Berton Braley takes to verse to question San Franciscans’ aversion to the term:

Why not call her “Frisco?”
Brethren, what’s the harm?
Good old San Francisco
Will not lose her charm,
Just because you name her
With a nic-name brief;
How can “Frisco” shame her,
Pain or cause her grief?

Why not call her “Frisco?”
She’ll be still the same
Gay old San Francisco
Under any name.

1915

Digital Sheet Music Collection

California Outlook reports: “The influx of eastern visitors who have ‘come to see the ‘Frisco exposition’ is causing the native San Franciscan to boil with wrath.” • The same year, a traveler to the city confirms that he was warned “time and again not to refer to it as ”Frisco.'”

1920

“San Francisco is all puffed up with itself,” declares the editor of Reedy’s Mirror. (What’s new?) Also: “Worse than saying ‘Earthquake’ is to call the city ‘Frisco.’ The word invites physical assault.”

1938

A resident observes, “I think we are comfortably informal—although we do insist on the full name San Francisco rather than Frisco.” • An almanac published by the Federal Writers Project offers this advice for tourists:

If you want to be liked in San Francisco,
Remember not to call it “Frisco.”
If you’d rather not arouse our ire,
Remember the earthquake was “the fire.”
If you want to earn our friendliness,
Remember to knock Los Angeles.

1943

Time reports: “Because ‘Frisco’ is a contraction abhorrent to all San Franciscans, roly-poly Mayor Angelo Rossi sped to Hollywood to take issue with 20th Century-Fox, about to release a picture called Hello, Frisco.” Rossi reportedly convinces the movie’s producers to promote it as Hello, San Francisco, Hello within city limits.

1946

“If you want to win friends and influence people there, don’t call it Frisco,” a guide to California advises visitors to the city.

Herb and legend

Legendary San Francisco columnist Herb Caen had an odd relationship with “Frisco.” In 1941, he insisted that “It makes you feel good all over once in a while to say ‘Frisco’ right out loud.” Then in 1953 he wrote a book called Don’t Call it Frisco. He flipped-flopped a lot. In 1993, the three-dot scribe praised “the F word” as “a salty nickname, redolent of the days when we had a bustling waterfront.” Yet in another column that year, Caen observed, “I no longer hear people say either ‘Frisco’ or, in automatic reproof, ‘Don’t call it Frisco.’ An ominous sign…” But then: “Adolescence is believing that ‘Frisco’ is a racy nickname for a city; senility is automatically saying ‘Don’t call it Frisco’; maturity is figuring it doesn’t matter all that much…”

1954

Hells Angels Frisco motorcyle club opens. They seem like nice guys.

1956

Future San Francisco Chronicle scribe Stanton Delaplane explains to delegates coming to the city for the GOP Convention, “You can call Los Angeles ‘L.A.’ You can call chicago ‘Chi.’ But if you call San Francisco ‘Frisco,’ they cut your Republican buttons off and drum you out of town.”

1957

“We wished each other luck,” writes overrated khaki-wearer Jack Kerouac in On the Road, “We would meet in Frisco.”

1967

A headline in Life magazine that mentions “Frisco” draws angry letters. Cynthia Woo demands, “What made you think you could get away with ‘Frisco’…? No San Franciscan uses or likes the name.

1968

“I left my home in Georgia / Headed for the Frisco Bay,” sings Otis Redding in “(Sittin’ On) The Dock of the Bay.” You can’t argue with Otis Redding.

Digital Sheet Music Collection

1974

Visiting journalists receive an official city press kit titled “Don’t Call It ‘Frisco’.” (The visitors’ bureau still issues this advice.)

1977

Bette Midler plays Bimbo’s: “They told me, ‘Don’t call it Frisco, don’t call it Frisco… It’ll upset the natives.’ Well, FRISCO, FRISCO, FRISCO!” The Los Angeles Times reports that the audience loved it.

1981

A mock trial is held for the F-word. Despite pro-“Frisco” testimony from Peter Tamony, the judge rules against the syncope, arguing that it demeans the city’s namesake, St. Francis. (The same judge later heard a moot case on whether there is any there in Oakland.)

1989

Herb Caen observes San Franciscans backsliding: “Two hallowed precepts of my childhood—that you never call it Frisco and that you always call the 1906 earthquake ‘The Fire’—seem to have become outmoded. It is now accepted that Frisco suffered a quake in Ought Six…”

1995

Caen covers his bases again: “It’s San Francisco…Not Frisco but San Francisco. Caress each Spanish syllable, salute our Italian saint. Don’t say Frisco and don’t say San-Fran-Cis-Co. That’s the way Easterners, like Larry King, pronounce it.” He also notes that reminding people to not call it Frisco is “a conditioned reflex that is wearing out.”

2014

Writing about the proud use of “Frisco” by black San Franciscans, the SF Weekly‘s Joe Eskenazi writes that “the only people driven to complain about ‘Frisco’ appear to be aging Caucasians.”

2015

Nearly 80 percent of respondents to the second semiannual unscientific Blue Angels survey say that it is not okay to say “Frisco.”

2016

A digital media company valued at $1.5 billion encourages San Franciscans to “reclaim ‘Frisco'” to honor “the vital blue collar core of our city” and because it “pisses off tech bros.”

Continue reading – 

Why San Francisco’s "Frisco" Debate Will Never, Ever Die

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Oster, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why San Francisco’s "Frisco" Debate Will Never, Ever Die

Every Mayor in America Should Look at What Just Happened in St. Louis

Mother Jones

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

For more than two decades, NFL owners seeking to finance new stadiums with public money used Los Angeles as a bargaining chip, threatening to move to the City of Angels if they didn’t get what they wanted. Now St. Louis is losing its team to LA—and it still has years of multimillion-dollar payments left on its last bad stadium deal.

On Tuesday, the league’s owners voted to let the St. Louis Rams move to Los Angeles for the 2016 season and to build what’s supposed to be the NFL’s biggest stadium on the site of a one-time racetrack. (The NFL also gave the San Diego Chargers a year to decide whether to join the Rams or work out a new stadium deal, and promised $100 million to the Chargers and Oakland Raiders if they stay put in their respective markets.) Los Angeles officials already have lauded the Rams’ homecoming as an economic boost to the region; the state-of-the-art stadium in Inglewood, expected to open in 2019, could cost upwards of $3 billion, with the Rams likely playing in the Coliseum until then.

Meanwhile, the city and county of St. Louis will still pay at least $6 million apiece per year until 2021 to pay off bonds sold to construct and maintain the Edward Jones Dome, which opened in 1995. (The Rams paid a meager $500,000 per year to use the dome.) And then there’s the more than $3 million in public funds used to develop a $1 billion riverfront stadium proposal to keep the Rams—a pitch NFL Commissioner Roger Gooddell knocked as “inadequate” and “unsatisfactory.”

St. Louis officials have been quick to note that the city is searching for new tenants for year-round use and would review how much the loss will affect the area’s finances. They won’t, however, be looking for a new NFL franchise: Mayor Francis Slay told reporters Wednesday that the city is turning its back on the league, once and for all.

Read the article – 

Every Mayor in America Should Look at What Just Happened in St. Louis

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Every Mayor in America Should Look at What Just Happened in St. Louis

Did LA Officials Panic Over a Dumb Prank?

Mother Jones

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

As you all know by now, schools in Los Angeles were closed today because authorities received a “credible threat” of some kind of attack. So far, all we know is that (a) it came via an email routed through Germany, (b) it contained the word allah un-capitalized, and (c) several other cities, including New York, received the same message. Was it wise to shut down every school in LA over this? Mike O’Hare says no, essentially because the threat strikes him as ridiculous, not credible.

This makes me curious: do we ordinary citizens ever get the chance to evaluate these threats after the fact? I get that it’s sometimes unwise to release a lot of information about events like this, but it also means that we never get to weigh the judgment and common sense of our elected officials. O’Hare thinks the risk that this was a genuine threat is infinitesimal. It seems the same way to me. After all, any half-bright teenager can write an anonymous email and route it through a proxy server somewhere just for laughs. Was there anything more to it than that?

Well, maybe there was, but they’re not telling us. Maybe there really was a good reason to believe this might be a genuine threat.

Or, maybe it was just a prank email and everyone panicked. I don’t live in Los Angeles, but if I were a taxpayer there I’d sure like to know more about this. City officials will almost certainly say they can’t comment further because the FBI is investigating yada yada yada, but I suspect they just don’t want to admit that they panicked over a dubious threat. I wonder if we’ll ever be allowed to know?

See original article here:

Did LA Officials Panic Over a Dumb Prank?

Posted in Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Did LA Officials Panic Over a Dumb Prank?

A Quick Guide to Interpreting Everything You Hear About Obamacare Rate Increases

Mother Jones

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

How much are health care premiums on the Obamacare exchanges set to rise in 2016? That depends. Here are a few possible answers:

If everyone keeps the coverage they currently have, Charles Gaba estimates that the weighted average increase—that is, weighting states with bigger populations more heavily—will be about 12-13 percent.
If everyone shops around and chooses the second-lowest price silver plan, the federal government estimates that the weighted average on federal exchanges will go up 7.5 percent.
It depends on the state. If you live in California, you can figure on about a 4 percent increase. Texas? 5.1 percent. Oklahoma? 35.7 percent.
If you live in a big city and you shop around, Kaiser estimates that the weighted average will go down 0.7 percent if you account for the average size of the federal subsidy. In some cities, the decrease is even larger.

In other words, depending on how scary you feel like being, you can accurately cite the increase as 35.7 percent, 12-13 percent, 7.5 percent, or negative 0.7 percent. For example:

Obama: “In my hometown of Chicago, rates are going down by 5 percent.”
Democratic think tank: “If you shop around for the best rate, HHS estimates an average increase of 7.5 percent on the federal exchanges.”
Republican think tank: “Liberal analyst Charles Gaba estimates an average increase of 13 percent, with 18 states seeing increases of 20 percent or more.”
Trump: “Some people tell me their rates are going up by 25, even 35 percent!”

Every one of these is an accurate citation. So which one is the fairest? I’d say (a) you should count the tax credit since that affects what people actually pay, (b) some people will shop around and some won’t, and (c) you should usually cite a broad national estimate, not a state or local number.1 With all that taken into account, my prediction is that the average person using Obamacare will see an increase of about 6-7 percent.

1Obviously there are exceptions to all of these. If the Los Angeles Times wants to report on average increases in Los Angeles, then it should use the Los Angeles number. If you’re reporting on how well insurance companies are doing at estimating the premiums they need to charge, you should use raw numbers that don’t count the tax credit. Etc.

But if you do a telephone survey of Obamacare users next year and simply ask them, “How much more are you paying for health insurance than last year,” I think we’re going to end up around 6-7 percent.

Original post:  

A Quick Guide to Interpreting Everything You Hear About Obamacare Rate Increases

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Quick Guide to Interpreting Everything You Hear About Obamacare Rate Increases

The Almond Board Is Now Advertising on NPR Stations

Mother Jones

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

I recently heard a spot on KQED, San Francisco’s NPR affiliate radio station, that caught my attention. “Support for KQED comes from the Almond Board of California. The water needs of almond trees are not unique among trees, and almond growers are committed to innovation and water efficiency. More at almondsustainability.org,” read a radio host.

The defensive tone might be due to the unwanted press almonds have been getting, from Mother Jones and others, about how much water almonds use in drought-ridden California. The state accounts for 80 percent of the world’s almond production, and each almond takes about a gallon of water to grow. All told, growing the crop takes as much water in a year as Los Angeles homes and businesses use in three years. Over half of the almonds produced in California are exported abroad.

Now, it appears that the Almond Board of California, the trade group representing growers of the $6.5 billion crop, has gone on the offense, sponsoring messages through National Public Media, NPR’s sponsorship branch, on five NPR affiliates in San Francisco, Los Angeles, and Sacramento. In San Francisco, the ads appear to be running during peak driving hours, during Morning Edition and All Things Considered.

When asked in an email about the reason for the ads, the Almond Board’s Stacey Humble said, “The radio spots were developed more recently to serve our California communities’ need for more recent, accurate research and information reflecting the almond industry’s innovation and commitment to sustainable growing practices.”

An Instragram shot from the Almond Board’s Shark Week campaign.

The ads coincide with other Almond Board PR pushes over the past month. In late June, the Board announced that it would spend $2.5 million on research devoted to sustainable farming practices, including projects targeting water management and honeybee health. It also launched an oddly elaborate Shark Week campaign in the beginning of July, featuring the adventures of a shark who’s stopped being preying on people after he discovered the wonders of the crunchy snack.

On the website publicized in the radio ad, entitled “Get the Facts about Almonds and Water,” the Board argues that acre for acre, almonds use about the same amount of water as other fruits and veggies, and almond growers have cut water use per pound of product by 33 percent in the past two decades.

Despite their water use, almonds are more popular than ever, with Americans eating two times the amount of almonds per year as they did just seven years ago. But the continued drought has leaders in the industry worried—particularly as crop production is declining slightly despite increased acreage.

“The biggest concern for almond users continues to be the impact of ongoing drought on California almond production and how long it could be before sufficient water is available to reverse the downward yield trend,” read a recent Blue Diamond report. Increased demand and shorter supply is causing almond prices to soar. “Almonds a year ago were priced at about $3.30, and we thought that was an exorbitant price,” said Stephen Smith, the CFO of Hain Celestial, a food company that sells almond butter and almond milk. “And here we are looking at prices in the mid-$4 range.”

Link – 

The Almond Board Is Now Advertising on NPR Stations

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Almond Board Is Now Advertising on NPR Stations