Tag Archives: attra

I Have Found the Perfect VP for Donald Trump

Mother Jones

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

From the Guardian today:

In further news from the always attractive intersection of Kanye West, Twitter, and money….

This ought to be good. Please go on:

In further news from the always attractive intersection of Kanye West, Twitter, and money, the businessman Martin Shkreli — known for price gouging on Aids drugs and paying $2m for the one copy of Wu-Tang Clan’s Once Upon a Time in Shaolin album — has claimed he was swindled out of $15m when he attempted to buy the exclusive rights to The Life of Pablo. Shkreli tweeted that “someone named Daquan”, claiming to be “Kanye’s boy”, contacted him to follow through on the deal, which he did. “I hope you all enjoy this stupid music SO much, and the fact it has brought me so much pain and suffering. I quit rap,” Shkreli tweeted.

Assuming he really had given $15m to someone named Daquan claiming to be Kanye’s boy, Shkreli was able to secure a happy ending. He later tweeted that the Bitcoin founder Satoshi Nakamoto was going to help him get his money back. “I always win,” he concluded.

Maybe Donald Trump will pick Shkreli as his running mate. It sounds like a match made in heaven.

View original article:  

I Have Found the Perfect VP for Donald Trump

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Naka, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on I Have Found the Perfect VP for Donald Trump

A Majority of States Now Have Right-to-Work Laws

Mother Jones

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

West Virginia, once a bastion of organized labor, will soon join the ranks of the right-to-work states that have undercut union participation. The Republican-dominated state legislature on Friday overrode Democratic Gov. Earl Ray Tomblin’s veto of a right-to-work bill, becoming the 26th state in the nation to pass such legislation.

Right-to-work laws bar unions from negotiating contracts that require all workers represented by a union to pay dues—in effect guaranteeing workers the union’s protections and representation regardless of whether they contribute. The laws are broadly understood to weaken unions.

The bill faced fierce opposition from unions, who organized protests at the state capitol and launched TV and radio ad campaigns to fight the legislation. But it also had money behind it, courtesy of Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group backed by the Koch brothers that has lobbied for right-to-work laws across the nation. One of the West Virginia bill’s key proponents, Republican gubernatorial candidate and state Senate president Bill Cole, touted his efforts to pass the right-to-work bill at a Palm Springs retreat organized by the Kochs earlier this year.

According to the US Census Bureau, West Virginia had a higher poverty rate than all but 10 states between 2011 and 2013. Many communities have been hit hard by the loss of thousands of mining jobs in recent years. Republican lawmakers claimed that loosening labor laws was necessary to attract businesses to the state. Democrats have argued that it will ultimately hurt workers, and that the bill was aimed primarily at diminishing unions’ political clout.

The right-to-work law will go into effect on July 1.

This article: 

A Majority of States Now Have Right-to-Work Laws

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Majority of States Now Have Right-to-Work Laws

Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Mother Jones

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

A few years ago Jonathan Haidt wrote The Righteous Mind, an attempt to understand the way different people view morality. I won’t say that I bought his premise completely, but I did find it interesting and useful. In a nutshell, Haidt suggests that we all view morality through the lens of six different “foundations”—and the amount we value each foundation is crucial to understanding our political differences. Conservatives, for example, tend to view “proportionality”—an eye for an eye—as a key moral concern, while liberals tend to view “care/harm”—showing kindness to other people—as a key moral attribute. You can read more about it here.

So which presidential candidates appeal to which kinds of people? Over at Vox, Haidt and Emily Ekins write about some recent research Ekins did on supporters of various presidential candidates. I’ve condensed and excerpted the results in the chart on the right. As you can see, Democrats tend to value care but not proportionality. Republicans are just the opposite. No surprise there. But were there any moral values that were unusually strong for different candidates even after controlling for ideology and demographics?

Yes. Sanders supporters scored extremely low on the authority axis while Trump supporters scored high on authority and low on the care axis. Outside of the usual finding for proportionality, that’s it. Hillary Clinton supporters, in particular, were entirely middle-of-the-road: “Moral Foundations do not significantly predict a vote for Hillary Clinton; demographic variables seem to be all you need to predict her support (being female, nonwhite, and higher-income are all good predictors).”

So there you have it. Generally speaking, if you value proportionality but not care, you’re a Republican. If you value care but not proportionality, you’re a Democrat. Beyond that, if your world view values authority—even compared to others who are similar to you—you’re probably attracted to Donald Trump. If you’re unusually resistant to authority, you’re probably attracted to Bernie Sanders. The authors summarize the presidential race this way:

Bernie Sanders draws young liberal voters who have a strong desire for individual autonomy and place less value on social conformity and tradition. This likely leads them to appreciate Sanders’s libertarian streak and non-interventionist foreign policy. Once again, Hillary Clinton finds herself attracting more conservative Democratic voters who respect her tougher style, moderated positions, and more hawkish stance on foreign policy.

….On the Republican side…despite Trump’s longevity in the polls, authoritarianism is clearly not the only dynamic going on in the Republican race. In fact, the greatest differences by far in the simple foundation scores are on proportionality. Cruz and Rubio draw the extreme proportionalists — the Republicans who think it’s important to “let unsuccessful people fail and suffer the consequences,” as one of our questions put it.

….One surprise in our data was that Trump supporters were not extreme on any of the foundations. This means that Trump supporters are more centrist than is commonly realized; consequently, Trump’s prospects in the general election may be better than many pundits have thought. Cruz meanwhile, with a further-right moral profile, may have more difficulty attracting centrist Democrats and independents than would Trump.

So which moral foundations define you? If you’re curious, click here and take the test.

Read the article: 

Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Morality Shapes the Presidential Contest

Ted Cruz Links New Hampshire’s Heroin Epidemic to "Undocumented Democrats"

Mother Jones

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

New Hampshire’s status as the first primary state in the nation has had one clear policy consequence in 2016: It has turned a New England heroin epidemic into a national political conversation. And so, with five days to go until votes are cast, Ted Cruz took a break from his hectic town hall circuit to speak at a church here in Hooksett, New Hampshire, about his family’s history of addiction.

As the headliner of the Addiction Policy Forum, hosted by a Baptist church and a half-dozen recovery organizations, Cruz told two personal stories he’s offered before. The first was about his half sister, Miriam, who died of a drug overdose in 2011. Cruz recalled driving from Washington, DC, to Philadelphia, where he and his father picked up Miriam from the crack house where she was living and, over the course of five hours at Denny’s, tried desperately to help her piece her life back together. After his sister’s death, Cruz took a $20,000 loan to pay for his nephew, Miriam’s son, to go to boarding school. It’s a difficult story, and he tells it well. Then he talked about his father, Rafael, who left Ted and his mother behind in Calgary when the future senator was three years old, only to find Christ in Texas and return to the family. When he was finished, the mostly partisan crowd offered a chorus of “amen!”; it’s a story about his father’s faith that in actuality is a story of his own.

And if that’s how his speech had ended, it would have been in line with the way a number of candidates have talked about drug addiction in New Hampshire during the 2016 campaign—heartbreak at the human toll (New Hampshire averaged more than a death a day from overdoses in 2015), and a promise to act. But what Cruz really seemed to want to talk about was something else—the flood of “undocumented Democrats” coming across the border, and the urgent need for a magnificent wall to stop them. Take care of the illegal immigration, his argument goes, and you’ll take care of your drug problem.

“I would invite you to do as I have, to meet with farmers and ranchers in Texas who will show you photographs of dead body after dead body after dead body, of women and children abandoned and left to die in the desert,” he said. “Local farmers for whom it has become sadly a recurring experience to just encounter dead bodies of people being trafficked in, abused and abandoned by the coyotes and left to die. And it is the very same cartels that are trafficking in human beings, that are physically abusing these human beings, that are sexually abusing these human beings, that are selling God’s creatures into sexual slavery. It is these very same cartels that are the drug cartels, that are bringing heroin.”

He had a specific cartel in mind:

El Chapo. You know, Sean Penn seems to think he is a sexy and attractive character. I so appreciate Hollywood for glorifying vicious homicidal killers. What a cute and chic thing to celebrate. Someone who murders and destroys lives for a living. El Chapo’s organization brings vast quantities of drugs into this country, vast quantities of heroin. Heroin confiscation at the border have increased from about 556 kilos in 2008 to 2,100 kilos in 2012. When the border’s not secure, that’s what happens: You have drugs flooding into this country. And you have people in New Hampshire and elsewhere, they sometimes start with prescription painkillers, but those become harder and harder to get and they turn to heroin. if we want to turn around the drug crisis, we have got to finally and permanently secure the border. Now I tell you, we know how to do this. We’re told by the media over and over again, this problem can’t be solved. You can’t secure the border. How many times have you heard a reporter say, ‘If you build a 10-foot wall, they’ll build an 11-foot ladder.’ Reporters think they’re very clever. Well, if you want to know how walls work, I invite you all to come to Israel.

From there, Cruz introduced the audience to another villain, what he often refers to on the stump as the “Washington cartel.” “Solving the drug problem becomes de-emphasized because Republicans’ policy view instead is to open the borders to illegal immigration,” Cruz said. “On the Democratic side, you know there’s a new term for illegal immigrants. It’s called ‘undocumented Democrats.'” He wandered even further into his stump speech, connecting the dots from the heroin crisis to the lack of a decent fence on the border, to the stagnation of Americans’ wages and the dissatisfaction of the American middle class with Washington politicians. If you showed up late, you might have been surprised to hear that the event was about drug abuse in New Hampshire.

Heroin has become a serious issue in the 2016 presidential race in part because talking about the epidemic is also a way to talk about something else—to show you’re attentive to what’s happening at the local level, to show you have empathy. For Cruz, riding high off the momentum of his big victory in Iowa, it’s a way to show that he can be just as Donald Trump as Donald Trump—but with a conscience.

Credit:

Ted Cruz Links New Hampshire’s Heroin Epidemic to "Undocumented Democrats"

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ted Cruz Links New Hampshire’s Heroin Epidemic to "Undocumented Democrats"

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Mother Jones

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

A few days before the 1986 Vermont gubernatorial election, Bernie Sanders held a rally in downtown Burlington. Sanders, then the independent mayor of the state’s largest city, was trailing badly in a three-way race with Democratic Gov. Madeleine Kunin, the state’s first female chief executive, and Republican Lt. Gov. Peter Smith, and he was running out of time.

So, as Kunin recounts in her 1994 memoir, Living a Political Life, Sanders leveled a tough attack against her. At that rally, Kunin wrote, Sanders declared that “he would be a better feminist than I.” According to her account, Sanders shouted that Kunin had “done nothing for women.” And, she recalled in her book, “When my husband, there as my surrogate (I was scheduled to speak elsewhere), rose to speak in my defense, he was booed by the crowd. Arthur’s red-faced anger became the children’s horror story of the campaign, which they embellished in the retelling—our private macabre joke.” Kunin was already coming under attack from the right for her vocal support of the Equal Rights Amendment; now she was being hammered for not being feminist enough.

Continue Reading »

Original source: 

That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on That Time Bernie Sanders Said He Was a Bigger Feminist Than His Female Opponent

The Feds Are Finally Investigating the San Francisco Police, But Here’s the Catch

Mother Jones

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

Nearly two months after San Francisco police officers shot and killed a 26-year-old black man named Mario Woods, officials at the US Department of Justice have announced that they will launch a comprehensive review of the department’s policies and practices.

The federal review will “help identify key areas for improvement” in the department’s operational policies, training practices, and accountability procedures, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in a statement released Monday.

The announcement comes amid a public outcry over Woods’s death last month, which sparked protests and prompted city officials to call for an independent investigation into the incident. On December 2, officers surrounded Woods on a sidewalk in the Bayview district neighborhood after identifying him as a possible suspect in a stabbing that took place earlier that day. The incident was recorded by several onlookers who uploaded cell phone footage to social media, attracting widespread attention.

Push for review

One video showed Woods standing with his back against a wall, facing at least six officers pointing their guns at him. They ordered him to drop the knife. When Woods did not comply, officers fired bean bag pellets and pepper-sprayed him. At one point, Woods appeared to walk away from the officers, and seconds later multiple shots rang out. A total of five officers opened fire, San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr later told reporters. Woods was pronounced dead at the scene. The officers who fired their guns were placed on leave after the shooting, but have since returned to desk duty. Woods’ family and supporters have demanded the firing of Suhr, who formerly headed the Bayview police station. Family members, who say Woods had struggled with mental health issues, have also filed a federal wrongful death lawsuit against the city.

Several members of San Francisco’s board of supervisors, community leaders, and civil rights advocates have called for an independent investigation into Woods’s death and the department’s use of force policies. Suhr and San Francisco’s Mayor Ed Lee also jointly requested the federal review, according to the DOJ statement, and “have publicly committed to providing the resources necessary for its successful completion.”

Protesters march toward Super Bowl City in San Francisco, Jan. 29, 2016. Jaeah Lee

The Justice Department’s review into SFPD, however, differs significantly from the “pattern and practice” investigations into police departments such as Ferguson and Cleveland. Pattern-and-practice investigations, handled by the Civil Rights Division and meant to identify department-wide civil rights violations, typically result in court-ordered reforms that are monitored by a judge or a third party, and sometimes last more than a decade. The SFPD review, led by the Office of Community Oriented Policing, will result in a report laying out recommended reforms as well as progress reports on their implementation. But those reviews tend to take place in a shorter time period, and the reforms are not legally binding.

Other cases

Woods’s death is the latest in a long line of controversies involving the San Francisco police and their use of force against citizens, particularly those suffering from mental health issues, and communities of color.

More than 60 percent of all fatal police shootings by SFPD cops since 2010 involved people who had a history of mental health problems, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.
Last February, 20-year-old Amilcar Perez-Lopez was shot to death by two plain-clothed SFPD officers in the Mission District neighborhood. Officials said he was carrying a knife.
A month later, a judge cleared four other cops for their involvement in the March 2014 death of 28-year-old Alex Nieto, who allegedly pointed a Taser at police officers. District Attorney George Gascon said the officers, who fired a total of 59 shots, reasonably mistook the Taser for a pistol.
SFPD also came under heightened scrutiny last April, when Suhr moved to fire 8 officers over their 2012 exchange of racist and homophobic text messages. In December, a judge ruled that the officers could not be fired or otherwise disciplined because the department waited too long to address the case, allowing a one-year statute of limitations for any personnel investigations—set by the Peace Officer Bill of Rights—to lapse.

Some experts have already expressed concern that the DOJ’s current review of SFPD does not go far enough.

“It doesn’t have the teeth that the Civil Rights’ Division investigation does,” Aaron Zisser, a former attorney for the division told the San Francisco Examiner on Monday. The current review, Zisser said, was a strong indicator that there will not be a broader civil rights investigation.

Continue at source:  

The Feds Are Finally Investigating the San Francisco Police, But Here’s the Catch

Posted in Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Feds Are Finally Investigating the San Francisco Police, But Here’s the Catch

Is Feeding Birds in Winter Good for Them?

During winter, most birds traditionally eat weed seeds and overwintering insects. Their options have dramatically increased in the last few decades. Now almost one-third of adults in North America put out nearly one billion pounds of birdseed each year. Does this help birds, or does it create an unhealthy cycle of dependency?

Research has shown that feeding birds in winter is largely to their advantage.

How does winter feeding benefit birds?

A study by the University of Exeter and Queens University Belfast found that extra food provided at bird feeders during winter leads to more successful breeding in the spring. Birds that received extra food laid eggs earlier and had a higher survival rate of the chicks.

The researchers also concluded that its beneficial to keep feeding until the end of breeding season. Feeders that were left out until late spring continued to have a positive effect on breeding outcomes.

Winter bird feeders have been shown to have the greatest benefit when birds are most challenged, such as during a particularly harsh winter or in poor-quality habitats. This is true for summer and fall feeding as well. Any time when natural food is scarce, supplemental feeding can help.

Feeding birds during winter may improve their immediate survival and breeding success, but what about the dependency issue? Do winter-fed birds lose their ability to forage for natural food sources when the feeders are gone?

It turns out this is also a myth. A University of Wisconsin study removed feeders from a woodland where chickadees had been fed for the previous 25 years. They compared survival rates with chickadees in a nearby woodland that never had feeders. They found that the winter-fed chickadees were able to switch back immediately to natural foraging and they survived the winter as well as the chickadees who had never used feeders.

What should you feed birds?

Its important to provide nutritious options to overwintering birds. Dont ever give them leftover bread or baked goods. This is not their natural diet and will not provide the vitamins and minerals birds need to survive the winter.

Seeds. These are the most common bird food available. Seeds are high in carbohydrates and calories, which provide valuable energy during cold temperatures. Commercial seed mixes often contain a lot of cheap filler seeds and grains, such as oats, wheat and flax. Youve likely seen these seeds thrown on the ground as birds search through the mix looking for their favorites.

Its recommended to buy separate seed varieties. Try putting each type of seed in different feeders so the birds can choose what they like. This will give you a good idea of what your local birds are looking for.

The black oil sunflower seed is well-loved by many birds, and thistle seed is favored by siskins and goldfinches. Millet is often preferred by ground-feeding birds, such as quail, doves and juncos. Specialty seed blends can also be found at higher-quality stores.

Suet. Most suet is beef kidney fat, which has similar fats and proteins to insects. This will attract insect-eating birds, such as woodpeckers, jays and nuthatches.

Prepared suet cakes are often available at stores that carry birdseed. Suet can be mixed with other foods, such as seeds. Either plain or in a mix, you can put suet in wire mesh feeders or smear it into suet logs or pine cones.

Do not put suet out in warm weather. It can become rancid or melt quickly. When melted, the liquid fat can coat birds beaks and cause damage to feathers during preening.

Fruit. Many birds, such as waxwings, thrushes and robins, may only come to your feeder if fruit or berries are offered. Fresh or dried apples, cranberries, blueberries, currants, oranges and raisins are often popular.

Peanut butter. This can be used similarly to suet. Try mixing it with some seeds, cornmeal, and dried fruit for an alternative, high-protein bird snack. Stick to natural peanut butter to avoid any added sugar and salt.

One more reason to plant a tree.

A significant issue birds face today is loss of habitat. The wild spaces they once had for natural foraging are decreasing. Another way you can help birds to successfully overwinter is to revitalize wild areas or plant more food-bearing shrubs and trees in your backyard. Not only will this provide more food, it will also give them nesting sites and protection from predators.

Related
The Pros and Cons of Backyard Bird Feeders
Winter Bird Feeding: 7 Tips and Recipes
10 Reasons to Make Lichen Your New Hobby

Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

Originally from:

Is Feeding Birds in Winter Good for Them?

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Is Feeding Birds in Winter Good for Them?

3 Troubling Ways the Charter School Boom Is Like the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Mother Jones

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

Acting US Secretary of Education John King has called charter schools “good laboratories for innovation.” It’s that kind of language that’s helped the number of public charters jump from 1,542 in 1999 to 6,723 in 2014—when more than 1 million students sat on charter school waiting lists, including a whopping 163,000 in New York City alone.

But, as four researchers argue in a recent study in the University of Richmond Law Review, charter schools could be on the same path that led to the subprime mortgage crisis.

Preston Green III, an urban education professor at the University of Connecticut and one of the study’s authors, warns that the underregulated growth of these publicly financed, privately run institutions could result in a “bubble” in black, urban school districts. Many black parents, he argues, are unhappy with the state of traditional public education in their communities and view charter schools as a better alternative. As families see wait lists pile up, they may tolerate policies that allow more schools to open, even as they overlook the much-reported consequences of underregulated schools: poor academic performance, unequal discipline, financial fraud, and the exclusion of high-cost students, such as those with disabilities. It was such an issue that in 2014, the Department of Education released a letter reminding charter schools that if they receive federal funds, they must comply with the federal statutes disallowing discrimination on the basis of race, sex, or disability.

“It’s just a long-forming bubble,” Green says. “We are at ground zero for this.”

Just how similar are the charter school boom and the mortgage crisis? We broke down the report with Green to see.

More authorizers, more problems: Much like the banks that sold mortgages to a secondary market leading up to the housing crisis, charter authorizers—the institutions that determine whether to allow a charter to open—carry a similar decision-making power. Since school districts, which made up nearly 90 percent of authorizers in 2013 and green-light more than half the nation’s charter schools, tend to each oversee only five or fewer charters, proponents look to independent institutions to grant additional charters. Higher-education institutions make up the next largest share of authorizers, followed by nonprofits and state education agencies. If more states grant approval power to more authorizers, even more charter schools will result. (The Center for Education Reform notes that states with multiple authorizers have almost three and a half times more charter schools than states with only school district approval.)

But these independent authorizers, the paper argues, may be less likely to screen charters and ultimately assume less risk if they fail. Green notes that the school districts, not these other institutions, are responsible for figuring out what to do with students—the independent authorizers, he adds, “don’t have skin in the game.” A 2009 study from Stanford’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes found that, in states that allow different institutions to approve charters, academic performance for students appeared to wane. In those states, low-performing charter schools at risk of closing can find a new authorizer—”authorizer hopping”—to keep the school running and, researchers argue, to avoid accountability measures.

“Misalignment of incentives”: Just as the banks sold mortgages to Wall Street and hired servicers to collect payments and modify loans, charter schools enlist the help of education management organizations (EMOs) to run the schools’ day-to-day operations. While servicers raked in money from fees and foreclosed loans, management companies, many of which are for-profit, receive money from appointed charter board. These charter boards are supposed to ensure compliance, but, as the paper notes, the for-profit companies running the schools “have the incentive to increase their revenues or cut expenses in ways that may contradict the goals of charter school boards.”

Between 35 percent and 40 percent of charter schools are operated by EMOs, and one study found that these charters educate 45 percent of students. According to Green, charter school boards aren’t looking closely enough at these organizations and “are not well-equipped” to deal with them. Conflicts of interest may arise between the boards and the EMOs; for example, a Virginia-based operator named Imagine Schools recruited people to a Missouri school board and negotiated a lucrative deal on the school it managed. (Last January, a federal judge ordered Imagine to pay nearly $1 million to the school for what the judge called “self-dealing.”) For-profit management companies may also charge charters with exorbitant rents for space to house students and can choose to not take in students considered “too expensive,” such as students with disabilities.

Predatory practices hit charter schools, too: In the subprime mortgage world, lenders steered borrowers into risky loans and targeted homebuyers, particularly black and Hispanic borrowers, with excessive fees, bundled products, loan flipping, and forced arbitration. Green says charter schools have engaged in practices that take advantage of “vulnerable parents who lack the political power and financial resources to advocate for change in the existing system.” In Milwaukee, for example, some charter schools handed out gift cards to teens and parents who recommended the school to others, even though no public schools offered such financial incentives. (The city’s aldermen quashed the practice in 2014.)

Once kids have enrolled, though, overly punitive policies create a hostile environment for those seen as difficult. In Chicago, Noble Network of Charter Schools demanded students follow a strict discipline policy or face fines. (That school phased out the imposition after years of public pressure.) Green also points to another instance: At Success Academy, the prominent charter school network in New York City led by Eva Moskowitz, one Brooklyn principal created a “Got to Go” list of difficult students. (The New York Times reported last week that the principal took a leave of absence.) Success Academy has long faced accusations that it has filtered out underperforming and difficult students.

“Choice is a powerful motivator,” Green says. “I’m for choice, but I want the choices to be good. We need to be screening these schools much more carefully.”

Link:

3 Troubling Ways the Charter School Boom Is Like the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, Green Light, LG, ONA, Presto, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 3 Troubling Ways the Charter School Boom Is Like the Subprime Mortgage Crisis

My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

Mother Jones

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

Every story has a beginning. This one starts in late 2001, when my father-in-law fractured three of his ribs. Harry was a retired physician, and after a thorough workup that he insisted on, it turned out that his bone density was severely compromised for no immediately apparent reason. Further tests eventually revealed the cause: He had multiple myeloma, a cancer of the bone marrow.

Harry’s cancer was caught early, and it progressed slowly. By 2007, however, it had taken over his body. When my wife saw him in early 2008, she remarked that he looked like someone in a lot of pain but trying not to show it—despite the fact that he was taking oxycodone, a powerful opiate.

During a career that lasted more than three decades, he had watched all too many of his patients struggle with their final months, and this experience had persuaded him that he would take his own life if he found himself dying of an agonizing and clearly terminal illness. Now he was. Finally, on the evening of January 29, he stumbled and fell during the night, and decided his time had come: He was afraid if he delayed any longer he’d become physically unable to remain in control of his own destiny.

Kendrick Brinson

This was important. Since Harry lived in California, where assisted suicide was illegal, he had to be able to take his life without help. Because of this, he initially intended not to tell either of his daughters about his decision. He wanted to run absolutely no risk that merely by being with him in his final moments, or even knowing of his plans, they’d be held responsible for his death.

Luckily, neither my wife nor her sister had to learn of their father’s death via a call from the morgue. A friend persuaded him to call both of them, and on January 30 we all drove out to Palm Springs to say our last goodbyes. After that, Harry wrote a note explaining that he was about to take his own life and that no one else had provided any assistance. It was time. He categorically forbade any of us from so much as taking his arm. He walked into his bedroom, put a plastic bag over his head, and opened up a tank of helium. A few minutes later he was dead.

Why helium? Why the note?

Harry was a methodical man, and when he decided he would eventually take his own life, he naturally looked for advice. The place he turned to was the Hemlock Society, founded in 1980 with a mission of fighting to legalize physician-assisted suicide for terminally ill adults.

When we went through Harry’s files after his death, we found a slim manila folder with several pages copied from various Hemlock publications, nestled between a bunch of fat folders containing financial information, his will, and his medical records. One of the pages recommended that you write a note making it clear that you had taken your own life, unassisted by anyone else. This was meant for the sheriff or the coroner, and was designed to protect anyone who might be suspected of illegally aiding you.

There were also several pages with instructions on how to take your life using an “inert gas hood kit.” This is a fairly simple and painless way to die, since your body reflexively wants to breathe, but doesn’t really care what it breathes. If you breathe pure helium, or any other inert gas, you won’t feel any sensation of suffocation at all. You simply fall unconscious after a minute or so, and within a few more minutes, you die.

At the time of Harry’s death, the Hemlock Society—known today as Compassion & Choices—was one of the oldest and best-known organizations working to legalize physician-assisted suicide. But it was hardly the first. During the 19th century, as opioid painkillers became widespread, euthanasia became a lively topic of discussion. By the turn of the century it had been banned in nearly every state. Public opinion finally started to shift in the 1930s, and by 1949 it had progressed enough that the Euthanasia Society of America was able to recruit several hundred Protestant and Jewish clergymen in an effort to challenge New York’s law prohibiting physician-assisted suicide. Thanks partly to fresh memories of the infamous Nazi “forced euthanasia” programs that killed thousands of the disabled and mentally ill, and partly to the Catholic Church’s opposition to any form of suicide, their effort failed.

Still, support for physician-assisted suicide continued to tick slowly upward, from 37 percent in 1947 to 53 percent by the early ’70s, when the birth of the patients’ rights movement helped shine a new spotlight on issues of death and dying. Karen Ann Quinlan provided the spark when she fell into a coma and was declared by doctors to be in a “persistent vegetative state.” Her parents went to court to have her respirator removed, and in 1976 the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled in their favor. That year California became the first state to recognize living wills as legally binding documents that authorize the removal of life-sustaining treatment in the face of imminent death. Other states followed, and end-of-life directives became an increasingly common part of the medical landscape. Today, there’s hardly a medical show on television that hasn’t dealt with the now-famous DNR—Do Not Resuscitate—order.

Active euthanasia remained illegal everywhere, but the door had been opened a crack—and supporters of assisted suicide started pushing to open it further. Founded in the aftermath of the Quinlan fight, the Santa Monica-based Hemlock Society soon became one of the most aggressive backers of abolishing legal bans on physician-assisted suicide. By the end of the 1980s, national support had gained another 12 polling points, and success seemed within grasp. In 1988, supporters of assisted suicide tried but failed to get a measure on the California ballot. In 1991, a similar measure made it on the ballot in Washington state but failed to gain passage. In 1992, Californians got a measure on the ballot, and polls showed the public widely in favor. But a well-funded opposition campaign, led by the Catholic Church, took its toll, and in the end the initiative failed, 54 to 46 percent. Finally, in 1994, backers succeeded in Oregon. Three years later, following a court fight and a second ballot measure, Oregon became the first state to legalize physician-aided suicide.

Ever since Oregon’s Death With Dignity Act took effect in 1997, the state health authority has published annual reports about the numbers and types of patients who have gotten a prescription for DWDA drugs. Probably the main takeaway is the simplest one: If Oregon is any indication, assisted suicide will never be a popular option. In 1998, only 24 people received DWDA prescriptions, and 16 used them. By 2014, after 16 years in which Oregonians could get used to the idea, 155 people requested prescriptions, and 105 used them. That’s 105 out of about 34,000 total deaths statewide, or roughly one-third of 1 percent.

Part of this is due to the stringency of Oregon’s law. Requests for DWDA drugs must be confirmed by two witnesses and approved by two doctors. The patient must not be mentally ill. And most important of all, both doctors have to agree that the patient has no more than six months to live. Because of this, about two-thirds of all patients who requested drugs had cancer, an illness that frequently has a definite timeline. Only about one-sixth have degenerative diseases with indeterminate timelines, like Alzheimer’s or ALS—Lou Gehrig’s disease.

In the decade after Oregon’s law took effect, the physician-assisted-suicide movement gained little ground. On a national level approval rates remained steady, with about two-thirds of Americans telling Gallup they supported the concept, but that seemingly strong support didn’t translate into legislative success.

Some of the reasons for this failure are obvious, but among the obscure ones is this: Assisted suicide has long been a West Coast movement. During the late 1980s and early 1990s, California, Oregon, and Washington all had active legislative legalization campaigns—even if only Oregon’s succeeded—and according to a 1996 survey, West Coast doctors received many more requests for assisted suicide than doctors in other parts of the country. No one is quite sure why, but outside of the West Coast, it was simply not a very prominent issue.

Another reason legalization failed to gain ground is rooted in semantics. Miles Zaremski, an attorney who has argued on behalf of such bills for years, is typical of assisted-suicide supporters when he maintains that in the case of terminal patients, “we’re not dealing with the concept or notion of suicide at all.” Rather, it’s nothing more than aiding the natural dying process. Opponents call this Orwellian and worse. Public sensitivities reflect this linguistic divide. Although that longitudinal Gallup poll has long reported two-thirds support for legally allowing doctors to “end the patient’s life by some painless means,” support historically drops by 10 points or more when they ask if doctors should be allowed to “assist the patient to commit suicide.” So when legislation is under consideration, opponents fill the airwaves with the word “suicide,” and public support ebbs.

A third reason is demographic: The assisted-suicide movement has long been dominated by well-off, educated whites. As early as 1993, Dick Lehr reported in a Boston Globe series titled “Death and the Doctor’s Hand” that every doctor he talked to said that patients who asked about assistance in dying were typically middle to upper class and accustomed to being in charge. As one oncologist put it, “These are usually very intelligent people, in control of their life—white, executive, rich, always leaders of the pack, can’t be dependent on people a lot.”

In fact, one of the reasons Oregon was first to pass an assisted-suicide bill is likely because it’s a very white state—and so are the patients who take advantage of the Death With Dignity Act. The 2014 report from the Oregon Health Authority says that the median age of DWDA patients is 72 years old; 95 percent are white, and three-quarters have at least some college education.

Aid-in-dying bills are a tougher lift in more-diverse states. Minority patients have historically been wary of the medical establishment, and not without reason. There’s abundant evidence that people of color have less access to health care than whites and receive less treatment even when they do have access. If the health care system already shortchanges them during the prime of their lives, would it also shortchange them at the end, pressing them to forgo expensive end-of-life care and just take a pill instead? This fear makes the doctors who serve them cautious about discussing assisted suicide. “My concern is for Latinos and other minority groups that might get disproportionately counseled to opt for physician-assisted suicide,” one doctor told Lehr. More recently, Dr. Aaron Kheriaty, director of the medical ethics program at the University of California-Irvine School of Medicine, explained to the New York Times, “You’re seeing the push for assisted suicide from generally white, upper-middle-class people, who are least likely to be pressured. You’re not seeing support from the underinsured and economically marginalized. Those people want access to better health care.”

Finally, there’s the fourth and most obvious reason for legislative failures: Assisted suicide has a lot of moral opposition.

Suicide has always been a sin to the Catholic Church, and in 1965 the Vatican reaffirmed this position, declaring that abortion, euthanasia, and other forms of taking life “poison human society.” In 1980, the church released its “Declaration on Euthanasia,” which permitted the refusal of extraordinary measures when death was imminent but categorically opposed any kind of assisted suicide, calling it a “violation of the divine law.” In 1995, Pope John Paul II issued his Evangelium Vitae encyclical, which condemned the growing acceptance of euthanasia as a personal right.

It was Evangelium Vitae that popularized the epithet “culture of death,” which has since been adopted by born-again Christians to condemn both abortion and assisted suicide. This makes assisted-suicide legislation especially difficult to pass in states with a large Catholic or conservative Christian presence.

Opposition also comes from many within the disability rights movement, who have a long-standing wariness of the medical community. “Doctors used to exercise near-total control over the lives of people like me with significant disabilities,” writes Diane Coleman, a disability rights activist, “sentencing us to institutions, and imposing their own ideas about what medical procedures would improve our lives.” That attitude has since improved, but not enough to allay fears that doctors might care for the disabled differently if assisted suicide becomes legal. Will they treat depression in the disabled with less than their usual vigor, giving in more easily to requests for lethal drugs? Consciously or unconsciously, will they be more likely than they should be to diagnose imminent death?

And it’s not just doctors. The seriously disabled already live with the reality that many people consider their lives barely worth living in the first place. They fear that if assisted suicide becomes commonplace, the right to die could evolve into a “duty to die,” and those with disabilities—along with minorities and the poor—might face increased pressure to end their lives. The pressure could come from family members, exhausted from tending to disabled children or parents. It could come from insurance companies, for which assisted suicide is a lot cheaper than six months of expensive end-of-life care. It could come from government “death panels,” trying to control costs and keep taxes low. Or it could come from the disabled themselves, out of worry that they’re a burden on friends and family, both emotionally and financially.

More generally, opposition also comes from those who fear a slippery slope. In the Netherlands, where euthanasia is legal, 1 in 28 deaths now comes via doctor-assisted suicide. That’s up 200 percent in the past decade, largely because the rules are so lenient. All you have to do is claim unbearable suffering, which in practice can mean that you’re just tired of living.

Opposition also comes from the medical profession itself. This has softened over the past few years, with a large 2010 survey showing that more physicians supported assisted suicide (45 percent) than did not (40 percent). Nonetheless, until last year both the American Medical Association and every single state medical group formally opposed physician-aided suicide.

In California, all of these things—its large Latino population, its large Catholic population, the opposition of doctors, and real concerns about both slippery slopes and pressure on the poor—conspired for years to keep assisted suicide from becoming legal. In the past quarter century, advocates tried five times to pass legislation legalizing the practice—via ballot measures in 1988 and 1992 and legislation in 1995, 1999, and 2005. Five times they failed.

Then Brittany Maynard happened.

For California’s assisted-suicide movement, Brittany Maynard was perfect: young, attractive, articulate, dying of a brain tumor—and very much on their side. Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, called her “the new face of the movement.

Maynard’s cancer was diagnosed on the first day of 2014. She underwent surgery to remove the tumor, but in April it returned, worse than ever. A few months later she moved from San Francisco to Oregon and partnered with Compassion & Choices—the successor to the Hemlock Society—to create a six-minute video explaining why she wanted the right to control the time and manner of her death. It has been viewed nearly 12 million times since then. In October, she was featured on the cover of People. On November 1, she took the pills she had been prescribed and died.

Maynard’s story galvanized the cause of assisted suicide in California. Two months after her death yet another bill was introduced. It passed the state Senate in June, but opposition from church leaders, disability rights activists, and others bottled it up in the Assembly’s Health Committee in July. Nationally, support for “assisted suicide” was up 17 points, and had finally hit the same two-thirds level in Gallup polls that “ending life painlessly” had long maintained. State polls showed even stronger support: Californians approved it by a margin of 71 to 22 percent. Nevertheless, for the sixth time, assisted suicide couldn’t quite find enough votes even to make it out of committee.

Then supporters got a lucky—and totally unexpected—break: Gov. Jerry Brown called for a special legislative session to address Medicaid funding issues. Unsurprisingly for California, those funding issues haven’t yet been resolved. But equally unsurprisingly, California legislators had no intention of letting a special session go to waste. Dozens of measures were brought up, and one of them was the assisted-suicide bill that had failed only a month earlier. This time, though, things were different. Special-session rules allowed supporters to exclude from the Health Committee five Democrats who had opposed it earlier in the year. With that, the bill finally made it to a floor vote.

It also helped that the bill had a list of safeguards even longer than Oregon’s. Patients must be competent adults with no diagnosed mental disorders that would impair judgment. Two doctors have to certify that patients have less than six months to live. Doctors are required to meet privately with patients to ensure they aren’t being coerced. Two oral requests for aid-in-dying drugs must be made 15 days apart, along with a written request. Only the attending physician can prescribe the medication. The drugs must be self-administered. And the law expires automatically in 10 years unless the Legislature reenacts it.

On September 9, ABX2-15 was passed by the Assembly. On September 11, it was passed by the state Senate. On October 5, after a month of silence about his intentions, Brown signed it into law. Sometime in 2016—90 days after the Legislature adjourns the special session—assisted suicide will finally be legal in California.

For more than a decade after Oregon passed the nation’s first assisted-suicide law, no other state followed. Then, in 2008, Washington voters passed a ballot measure legalizing the practice. In 2009, it was legalized by court order in Montana. Vermont’s lawmakers followed in 2013. Now, the addition of California has tripled the number of Americans with the right to ask a physician for a lethal prescription if they have a terminal disease.

Does this mean that assisted suicide is the next big civil rights battle? The fact that four states have approved assisted suicide in just the past seven years suggests momentum may finally be reaching critical mass. What’s more, if Gallup’s polling is to be believed, the word “suicide” has finally lost its shock value. Still, legislation continues to fail more often than it passes, even in blue states like Massachusetts and Connecticut. Right now, it’s just too early to tell.

Every story has an ending. This one, it turns out, hasn’t quite ended yet, but the beginning of the end came in 2014, when I too broke a bone. In my case, it was a bone in my back, and when I woke up on the morning of October 18, I couldn’t move. My wife called 911, and a few minutes later a crew of burly firefighters loaded me onto a stretcher and carried me downstairs to a waiting ambulance.

Kendrick Brinson

In the ER, the first thing they did was take a set of X-rays. A few hours later a doctor delivered the news in matter-of-fact tones: They had found lytic lesions on bones all over my body—on my legs, my skull, my hips, and my arms. Further tests were needed to confirm the ER doctor’s diagnosis, but there was really only one thing that could cause this. Like Harry, I had multiple myeloma.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that Mother Jones provides excellent health care coverage for its employees. I spent a week in the hospital, where I got a kyphoplasty to repair the bone and began the first stage of chemotherapy. After 16 weeks, the level of cancerous cells in my bone marrow had decreased from about 50 percent to 5 percent, good enough that I qualified for the second stage of treatment, an autologous stem cell transplant.

In concept, this is a simple procedure. First, I spent a couple of days having bone marrow stem cells extracted from my blood and then frozen. A couple of weeks later I was given a huge dose of a powerful chemotherapy drug that’s basically designed to kill everything in its path—including all my healthy bone marrow stem cells. This would kill me in short order, so the next day my stem cells were unfrozen and pumped back into my body. That’s it. All the rest was recovery. My immune system died off completely within a few days, and then started rebounding. After a couple of weeks I went home. Two months after that I felt fine.

Unfortunately, the procedure didn’t work. My bone marrow was still 5 percent cancerous. So now I’m on stage three, a different chemotherapy drug. It’s working, but it’s not working all that well. My last lab test showed that my bone marrow is only 4 percent cancerous, which is the right direction but not the right magnitude. There’s no known treatment that puts multiple myeloma in complete remission, but the goal is to get close enough to zero that the cancerous cells are undetectable. I’m nowhere near that yet.

I may still get there. And if my current medication doesn’t do the job, there are other things to try. Nonetheless, even though I feel fine, the grim fact is that I’m responding to the chemotherapy only modestly.

So how long do I have to live? Five years? Ten years? Two? No one knows. But I’m 57 years old, and death is no longer so far away that I never think about it. The odds are slim that I’ll ever collect a Social Security check.

That makes this story a very personal one. Sometime in the next few years the cancer will start to progress rapidly and there will be no more treatments to try. My bones will become more brittle and may break or accumulate microfractures. My immune system will deteriorate, making me vulnerable to opportunistic outside infections. I may suffer from hemorrhages or renal failure. My bones will stop retaining calcium, which will build up instead in my bloodstream. I may be in great pain—or I may not. Multiple myeloma can end in a lot of different ways. But one thing is sure: Once any of these symptoms start up, I’ll be dead within a few weeks or months.

Like Harry, though, I’ve never intended to let that happen. I have no interest in trying to tell other people what to do if they find themselves close to death, but my choice has always been clear: I don’t want to die in pain—or drugged into a stupor by pain meds—all while connected to tubes and respirators in a hospital room. When the end is near, I want to take my own life.

Until this year, that would have left me with only two options. The first is to wait until my wife is out of the house and lug out a helium tank. Assuming I do everything right, I’ll die quickly and painlessly—but I’ll also die alone. I would have no chance to say goodbye to friends and family, nor they to me. My wife would have the horror of discovering my corpse when she came home, and that would be her final memory of me.

The second option is that I’d wait too long and land in a hospital. I’d end up with all those tubes and pain meds I never wanted, and I’d never get out. Maybe I’d be there for a week, maybe a few months. Who knows? It’s pretty much my worst nightmare.

Kendrick Brinson

But now I have a third option. When I’m within six months of death, I can ask my doctor for a prescription sedative that will kill me on my own terms—when I want and where I want. Will I ever use it? I don’t know. I suspect that taking your own life requires a certain amount of courage, and I don’t know if I have it. Probably none of us do until we’re faced with it head-on.

But either way, I won’t have to die before I want to out of fear that I’ll lose the capacity to control my own destiny if I wait too long. Nor will I have to die alone out of fear that anyone present runs the risk of being hauled in by an overzealous sheriff’s deputy. I’ll be able to tell my wife I love her one last time. I can take her hand and we can lie down together on our bed. And then, slowly and peacefully, I’ll draw my last breaths.

I don’t want to die. But if I have to, this is how I want it to happen. I don’t want a “suicide party,” but neither do I want to suffer needlessly for months. Nor do I want to cause other people any more pain than I have to. I want to go out quietly, with my loved ones at my side.

When he signed California’s right-to-die bill, Gov. Brown attached a signing statement. “I do not know what I would do if I were dying in prolonged and excruciating pain,” he wrote. “I am certain, however, that it would be a comfort to be able to consider the options afforded by this bill. And I wouldn’t deny that right to others.”

Nor would I.

See original article:  

My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on My Right to Die: Assisted Suicide, My Family, and Me

How to Quit Porn – Brett H. McKay

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

How to Quit Porn

Brett H. McKay

Genre: Self-Improvement

Price: $3.99

Publish Date: May 11, 2015

Publisher: Semper Virilis Publishing

Seller: BookBaby


Would you or someone you know like to quit the porn habit? If so, this is the book for you. In How to Quit Porn we take a look at the science of porn to uncover what makes it so alluring, the possible pitfalls of consuming too much, and how to kick the habit for good. By understanding the neurological and psychological effects of porn, you’ll be in a better position to confidently tackle and overcome your attraction and dependence on it. It&apos;s packed with accessible, easy to understand information and a practical, research-backed action plan, that, rather that magically &quot;curing&quot; you of your habit, will simply help you become the kind of guy who doesn’t need to look at porn anymore. If that&apos;s the guy you want to become, what are you waiting for? Pick up your copy of How to Quit Porn today.

See the article here: 

How to Quit Porn – Brett H. McKay

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, Uncategorized | Tagged , | Comments Off on How to Quit Porn – Brett H. McKay