Tag Archives: health

Paul Ryan Wants to Increase the Medicare Eligibility Age to 67

Mother Jones

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

Republicans announce a lot of health care plans. All of them are essentially the same, “a familiar hodgepodge of tax credits, health savings accounts, high-risk pools, block granting of Medicaid, tort reform, and interstate purchase of health plans.” Today, after months of cogitating, House Republicans have finally agreed on yet another a health care plan. It’s not a hodgepodge, however, it’s a “backpack.” Beyond that, however, it should sound pretty familiar:

In place of President Barack Obama’s health law, House Republicans propose providing Americans with refundable tax credits….catastrophic insurance….health-savings accounts….plans offered in other states….fee-for-service insurance through a newly created Medicare insurance exchange not a voucher! not a voucher! absolutely positively not a voucher! -ed.….pay taxes on the value of whatever health insurance employers provide.

Hmmm. There’s no mention of high-risk pools or tort reform or Medicaid block grants. What the hell is going on here? Who was responsible for—oh, wait. Maybe the Wall Street Journal just did a crappy job of describing it. Let’s check in with the Washington Post:

The GOP plan floats a variety of proposals….refundable tax credit….health savings accounts….“high-risk pools”….Medicaid funds would be handed to the states either as block grants or as per-capita allotments.

Now we’re talking. Every single buzzword is there except for tort reform. But maybe I should check in with Reuters:

The Republican proposal would gradually increase the Medicare eligibility age, which currently is 65, to match that of the Social Security pension plan, which is 67 for people born in 1960 or later….The Republican plan includes medical liability reform that would put a cap on non-economic damages awarded in lawsuits, a measure aimed at cutting overall healthcare costs.

Tort reform is there after all! And as an extra added bonus, the Medicare eligibility age goes up to 67! Hallelujah!

How could this possibly have taken more than five minutes to write? It’s identical to every health care plan ever proposed by Republicans. There is, of course, no funding mechanism, possibly because Republicans know perfectly well that it will do nothing and therefore require no funding. But here’s my favorite bit of well-hidden snark from the Washington Post account:

The most significant omission from the Republican health-care plan, though, is to what degree it will maintain — or, more likely, reduce — insurance coverage for Americans….Asked about the plan’s effect on coverage, a Republican leadership aide said Monday, “You’re getting to the dynamic effect of the plan and we can’t answer that until the committees start to legislate.”

But there is a significant clue in the GOP plan that it anticipates a surge in the ranks of the uninsured. Before the Affordable Care Act, the federal government’s primary mechanism for compensating health providers for delivering care to the uninsured was through “disproportionate share hospital” payments, or DSH, which are allocated to facilities that treated large numbers of the uninsured.

Under Obamacare, DSH payments were set to be phased out because coverage rates were expected to increase dramatically….The Republican plan would repeal those cuts entirely.

Bottom line: this is just the usual conservative mush. It would accomplish nothing. It would insure no one. It would wipe out all the gains of Obamacare. Millions of people would have their current health care ripped away from them, all so that Republicans can repeal the 3.8 percent tax on high-earner investment income that funds Obamacare.

And just for good measure, it will also raise the Medicare eligibility age to 67. Because apparently, the old hodgepodge just wasn’t quite Scrooge-like enough.

Follow this link: 

Paul Ryan Wants to Increase the Medicare Eligibility Age to 67

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Paul Ryan Wants to Increase the Medicare Eligibility Age to 67

Here’s How to Survive Cicada Season

If cicadas make your skin crawl, you’re luckyfor about 17 years, that is. That’s how long the “Brood V, Magicicada periodical” cicada lies dormant in the ground, pretty much out of sight and mind.

But then that 17th year happens and watch out! Billions of them crawl up out of the earthto mate, swarming and singing and flying helter skelter, landing on porches, in trees, in the back seat of your car and maybein your hair. And if one bug bugs you, the hordes that are Brood V will probably throw you into a tizzy.

Unfortunately, 2016 is the year when the cicadas, of the order Hemiptera in the Cicadidae family, are supposed to show up. And it won’t be just a few. They can reach a density of 1.5 million cicadas an acre in some areas, reports the Washington Post.

And man, will they make a lot of racket. With so many insects on the loose at one time, they generate what the Post described as a “menacing hum-whistle.” Think of the normal nighttime din you’re used to from a relatively low population of crickets and other bugsand magnify it by about 1,000. You can listen to a cicada “sing” herebut keep in mind, that’s just one. When a few million of them start flexing their tumbals, the drumlike organs found in their abdomens, the noise can be overwhelming.

The good news is, these cicadas are completely harmless. They don’t chew leaves, so while they may alight en masse on branches and bushes, they won’t devour them.

They don’t actually stick around very long, either. While we’re plagued with mosquitoes and flies from early spring until the first frost, these cicadas will only last about six weeks. They emerge and mate. Then the female lays fertilized eggs on live small twigs. Six weeks later the eggs will hatch and nymphs will emerge. The nymphs then fall from the trees and burrow into the ground to a depth of between six and 18 inches. There they’ll stay for the next 17 years, feeding on the juices they find in plant roots.

Here’s another benefit: cicadas don’t sting or bite, so unless they freak you out because they’re so big and garish-looking, you have nothing to fear from them.

But…if flying, noisy insects do give you the heeby-jeebies, here are some suggestions to help you tolerate the Brood V onslaught:

Take a vacation. Brood V cicadas are mostly restricted to the eastern seaboard. This year, reports Cicadamania.com, they’ll be primarily in Maryland, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and West Virginia. If you live in these states, and the cicadas really freak you out, temporarily relocate, or vacation in the south, Midwest, Great Plains or Rockies if you can. If you’ve always wanted to visit California, now may be the time.

Minimize your exposure. Keep doors and windows closed, including those of your car, so the cicadas can’t fly into your space. If a cicada does get into your house, put a jar over it, use the top to push the cicada inside, then take the jar outside and dump it out. You can also keep a jar in your car in the event you need to get the bug outside. NOTE: It’s less traumatic to trap and release the insect than to kill it and clean up the mess. I know this from personal experience.

Wear earplugs to sleep. If the noise of a billion cicadas singing becomes intolerable, close your windows and wear ear plugs to bed.

Drown them out with the radio or white noise. Keep a radio playing or use a white noise app on your mobile device to help mask the cicadas’ singing.

Tackle your phobia head on. Psychology Today recommends a five-step process: read about cicadas until they become familiar; look at their pictures; get a toy cicada and keep it around you; go to an insect zoo or natural history museum where you can observe cicadas either in real life or on display; if possible, hold a live cicada. This kind of “behavior therapy” can help you overcome the anxiety you feel when you see a cicada.

One thing Cicadamania recommends you DON’T do is eat cicadaseven though millions of people in Asia and Africa regularly dine onthese creatures. The insects bioaccumulate mercury, so ingesting them could give you a concentrated dose. Plus, they’ve been down in the dirt for 17 years, where they may also have been consumingpesticides and fertilizers, warns The Atlantic. Lastly, you could choke on their body parts, which can be hard and sharp.

Far better to enjoy cicadas for what they are: a phenomenon of Nature you’ll only have the chance to witness once every 17 years, if that.

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

Read original article:

Here’s How to Survive Cicada Season

Posted in alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, Northeastern, ONA, PUR, Radius, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How to Survive Cicada Season

Small-Town America Has a Serious Drinking-Water Problem

Mother Jones

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

On a sweltering day last July, a team of scientists stood before a crowded room of people from the tiny town of Sanders, Arizona, and showed them a photo of a dilapidated wooden shack covered by hole-filled tarps. This, the scientists explained, was the town’s water source.

Tonya Baloo, a longtime resident and mother of two, did a double take. “It looked like a Third World country,” she says. “I was like, ‘Is this Africa?'”

The well serving Sanders residents Chris Shuey

The researchers’ next image—a chart with a flat red line cutting through yellow bars—was even more worrisome. Tommy Rock, a Ph.D. candidate studying water contamination at Northern Arizona University, explained that the red line was the Environmental Protection Agency’s threshold for uranium allowed in public water systems: 30 micrograms per liter. The yellow bars represented uranium levels in Sanders’ water supply dating back to 2003. They hovered around 50 micrograms per liter.

For more than a decade, the chart showed, people in Sanders had been drinking contaminated water.

Residents listened, dumbfounded. Sanders sits on the edge of the Navajo Nation; uranium mines, relics of the Cold War, have long dotted tribal lands across the West. Long-term exposure to the heavy metal can cause kidney disease and cancer. But locals had never been notified of the contamination. Nor were they aware of the nearly 200 drinking-water violations that the local utility had amassed over the previous decade, ranging from uranium and bacterial contamination to failure to test the water.

“The initial betrayal,” Baloo says. “It was shocking.”

The meeting happened two months before researchers in Flint, Michigan, revealed that their city’s water was laced with lead. In both cases, curious scientists exposed years of drinking-water violations that affected predominantly poor, minority communities. (Most Sanders residents are Navajo and live on less than $20,000 per year.) But unlike urban Flint, Sanders is home to just 630 people and consists of a cluster of single-family homes, a gas station, a dollar store, two churches, and a trading post—all surrounded by miles of red rock and sage brush.

An aerial view of Sanders, Arizona Doc Searls/Flickr/Wikimedia Commons

The town is one of thousands of rural communities across the country where water quality has quietly evaded federal health standards for years. Many small utilities simply cannot afford advanced water treatment technology, says Jeff Griffiths, the former head of the EPA’s drinking-water division. (An inspection of the Sanders well in 2012, for example, found that “the owner pours an unapproved bleach product down the casing vent daily as the method of disinfection.”) According to EPA data, roughly 6 million Americans use one of 2,300 public water systems that qualify as “serious violators”—defined as having multiple, continuous, or serious health or reporting problems. Ninety-nine percent of those utilities serve fewer than 50,000 people. Together, they serve a population 25 times the size of Flint.

A week after Rock’s presentation, Sanders residents received a notice in the mail from the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) informing them of the high uranium levels in the local water supply—a first since the contamination was reported to the state in 2003. Long-term exposure can increase the risk of kidney disease and cancer, it said, but the situation wasn’t an emergency. “You do NOT need to seek an alternate (for example, bottled or hauled) water supply,” it read. “The water remains safe to use until treatment is put into place.”

DV.load(“https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/2843723-ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2843723-ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers”
);

ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers (PDF)

ADEQ-Communication-With-AZ-Windsong-Customers (Text)

Many residents, wary of the state’s assurances, avoided the water. Baloo brought her kids an hour away to her mom’s house for baths. Genevieve Lee, a 73-year-old retired teacher, resorted to eating canned food and taking sponge baths out of a bucket. She made 40-minute treks to Gallup, New Mexico, for water and often found herself wondering about the uranium’s impact. Did it contribute to her breast cancer in 2008? To her neighbor’s kidney disease?

Lee, Baloo, and others formed a water task force, petitioning for the town to connect to a nearby, well-maintained utility in the Navajo Nation. “All we think about is water,” Baloo told me this spring.

The hubbub led Sanders school system superintendent Dan Hute to test the schools’ water supply, which comes from a private well unaffiliated with Sanders’ water system; the water in Sanders elementary and middle schools was also contaminated. Hute tapped into school budgets to provide bottled water to roughly 500 students and 150 teachers. “I’ve gotten no help from anybody,” Hute told me earlier this spring. According to Rock, no local, state, or federal agency provided the town with bottled water or filters.

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, utilities are required to notify their customers if water has contaminant levels above the EPA’s threshold. If they fail to do so, the law calls for the “primacy agency”—in Sanders’ case, the state—to intervene. After 30 days, the EPA steps in.

Though the policy sounds simple enough, the reality is far murkier. Dr. Bruce Macler, an EPA toxicologist who helped decide to tell Sanders residents that their water was safe, explains that when it comes to uranium, the feds have a standard in place. “It’s no joke,” he says. “That’s why we go after them if they exceed it. But it isn’t terribly worrisome if they’re a little over the level.” If the contaminant were an “acute toxicant”—say, giardia—being over the standard wouldn’t be tolerated, he explains. But “when you’re looking at something that takes a lifetime of exposure” to produce health effects and the benchmark is already conservative, Macler says, it doesn’t make sense to tell residents to use other water sources: “The stuff isn’t that risky.”

Many disagree. “It’s unbelievable to me that they would have such a cavalier, unconcerned attitude,” says Chris Shuey, a researcher at the Southwest Research and Information Center who studied Sanders’ water with Rock. “These people have been drinking this for years. It’s not a short-term exposure,” says Doug Brugge, a biologist at Tufts University who studies the impact of uranium. “I’m a little baffled by their lack of concern.” (An EPA spokeswoman says the agency was concerned about the contamination of Sanders’ water and was working on establishing an alternative source.)

State records show that over the past two decades, environmental regulators repeatedly approached the local utility’s owners, an elderly couple named Pat and Lillie Paulsell, about the poor water quality. (Pat maintained the well until his death in 2014, when Lillie took over the utility, Arizona Windsong Water Company. Lillie Paulsell declined to be interviewed for this article.) An inspection in 1995 found that Windsong wasn’t testing for bacterial or lead contamination. By 2002, the utility had risen to the top of the EPA’s “Significant Noncompliance” list due to a host of reporting and health problems. Yet, according to an ADEQ representative’s notes from that year, Pat Paulsell “continued to make no effort to comply other than to send me a package of analytical results, which I have not yet received.” In 2012, a state-commissioned water quality report noted live wiring on the floor of the well. Uranium contamination continued to be a “major problem.” In 2014, the utility paid a $1,000 penalty to the EPA for its violations—but the uranium levels continued to exceed federal standards.

The records also show that the Paulsells were struggling financially and unable to keep up with the growing number of required tests and treatment plans. “I don’t know what you mean by emergency operations plan. Also a microbiological sample plan,” Pat wrote to the ADEQ in 2001. “I have tried very hard to keep all samples done that are supposed to be done.” When an ADEQ representative asked if he had a copy of the rules for water utilities, Pat replied, “You people are always changing them!” In 2002, an inspector found that the couple’s “current health is poor.” Pat, 69, was using a wheelchair. In 2009, he faxed a handwritten letter along with water sample results. “It costs between $35 and $45 each month to send this water sample. The power bills have more than tripled in the last 3 years. I have worn out a ¾ ton new pickup just on the water co…I can’t continue to operate this co with this small income.”

“There are Sanders equivalents all over the country,” says Macler, the EPA toxicologist. “Small little communities that have limited ownership, no money, no resources.” Many, adds Griffiths, the former EPA drinking-water head, are unwilling to cooperate with state and federal regulators, which don’t have the financial capacity to force the matter. “We have a foolish system for how we deal with this stuff,” he says.

In early April, eight months after the state distributed a water advisory and more than a decade after the first reported uranium, Sanders residents got some good news: Arizona and the Navajo Nation agreed to let Sanders switch water sources to the nearby Navajo utility. Within the month, water from a new source was flowing through the old pipes, which will be replaced this summer.

“From my standpoint, this is more of a success than a failure,” Macler says. “Could it have been sooner? Yeah. Are we glad that it’s done? Yeah.”

“It’s a really big sigh of relief,” says Tonya Baloo, who’s now watering the trees in the yard and letting her kids bathe at home every once in a while. Her family still drinks from jugs of water she buys from Walmart. Maybe after the pipes are fixed, she says, they’ll once again start drinking from the taps.

More here: 

Small-Town America Has a Serious Drinking-Water Problem

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Small-Town America Has a Serious Drinking-Water Problem

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

Bernie Sanders Officially Admits He Lost

Mother Jones

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

Bernie Sanders gets tossed a bone today:

Top Bernie Sanders supporters Dr. Cornel West and Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) will be among those on the Democratic Party’s important Platform Drafting Committee after the Vermont senator won a key concession as he looks to leave his mark on the party’s platform. The roster of the drafting committee, released by the Democratic National Committee on Monday, reflects the party’s agreement that Sanders would have five supporters on the committee, compared to six for Hillary Clinton.

First off: If Bernie has officially agreed to accept five out of 11 members on the Platform Committee, isn’t that a tacit admission that he’s already lost the nomination?

But also: Does anyone care about the platform? Seriously. I know it’s a big fight every four years, but does either party platform ever have any effect at all on the election?

And as long as we’re talking about Bernie, Christopher Achen and Larry Bartels write today that his supporters don’t actually support his lefty politics:

In a survey conducted for the American National Election Studies in late January, supporters of Mr. Sanders…were less likely than Mrs. Clinton’s supporters to favor concrete policies that Mr. Sanders has offered…including a higher minimum wage, increasing government spending on health care and an expansion of government services financed by higher taxes.

….Mr. Sanders has drawn enthusiastic support from young people, a common pattern for outsider candidates. But here, too…the generational difference in ideology seems not to have translated into more liberal positions on concrete policy issues — even on the specific issues championed by Mr. Sanders. For example, young Democrats were less likely than older Democrats to support increased government funding of health care, substantially less likely to favor a higher minimum wage and less likely to support expanding government services. Their distinctive liberalism is mostly a matter of adopting campaign labels, not policy preferences.

That’s interesting, if not especially surprising. We’re all basically tribalists at our cores. Except for you and me, of course.

See more here:  

Bernie Sanders Officially Admits He Lost

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Bernie Sanders Officially Admits He Lost

Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It’s Ever Been

Mother Jones

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

Harold Pollack says that Bernie Sanders has started a political revolution:

Not enough of one to win the Democratic presidential nomination, but enough to put the dream of single-payer health care back on the national political agenda in a way few would have expected five years ago….Just this week, Gallup released a poll indicating that “58% of U.S. adults favor the idea of replacing the Affordable Care Act with a federally funded healthcare system that provides insurance for all Americans.” Politico Magazine reports that Sanders’s health plan “is the most popular of the three remaining candidates.”

I’d be thrilled about this if it were true, but I have my doubts. The problem is that Americans have a long history of supporting things in the abstract but not so much when they become concrete partisan proposals. Take Obamacare. In 2013, a CNBC poll showed 37 percent unfavorability toward the “Affordable Care Act,” but 46 percent toward “Obamacare.” In 2014, a Morning Consult poll showed 71 percent support for offering Medicaid to all adults under the poverty line, but only 62 percent support for expanding Medicaid “as encouraged under the Affordable Care Act.” A Marist poll in Kentucky showed 57 percent disapproval of Obamacare but only 22 percent disapproval of kynect—Kentucky’s version of Obamacare. And of course, we have years of polling showing that lots of people like nearly all the individual elements of Obamacare, but then turn around and insist that they hate Obamacare itself.

As for universal health care, a Harris poll last September found 63 percent approval. A Kaiser poll in December found 58 percent support for Medicare-for-all. Gallup polls going back 15 years show higher support for government guarantees of health care during the Bush years than they do now.

So color me skeptical that Bernie Sanders has really had much effect on the health care debate. Gallup’s poll last week didn’t so much as breathe the word “taxes,” and if it did, support for the universal health care option would sink like a stone. Americans have long had mixed feeling about universal health care, and those feelings are deeply tied up in partisan attitudes and willingness to pay. Unfortunately, Sanders doesn’t seem to have moved the needle on this at all.

Read the article: 

Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It’s Ever Been

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Universal Health Care Is Probably No More Popular Now Than It’s Ever Been

Why I Am Vegan (And You Should Be Too)

Since the vegan movement started in the 1940s, it has been mainly about ending the exploitation of animals. While veganism has grown in numbers throughout the decades, lets face it: most people simply dont care about animals enough to stop using them as food. But animal welfare is only one reason to go vegan. Other than the animals, here are some of the many reasons why I am vegan and you should be too.

Veganism Is Feminism

Veganism is based on the principle of speciesism, or the belief that no species (in this case, humans) is inherently superior to another species.

This concept is closely related to sexism, as well as racism, classism, ableism, heterosexualism, and the other isms that plague society. If you allow the belief that humans are superior to animals and thus it is okay to exploit them, then you make room for the belief that men are superior to women and so forth. To quote Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple:

The animals of the world exist for their own reasons. They were not made for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for men.

Veganism Is Good for the Planet

Unless youve been solely tuned to Fox News, you are probably aware by now that global warming is a serious problem. The 2014 UN report on climate change said that we can expect famine, drought, and wars over resources by 2050 if climate change isnt halted.

While the media focuses on things like taking shorter shower and using public transportation as a way to curb the eminent doom that is global warming, they often fail to mention what really needs to be done, which is to change the way we eat.

It will be hard to meet the 2-degree goal no matter what; it will be impossible if livestock pollution isn’t part of the mix, Doug Boucher, PhD ecologist and evolutionary biologist and director of climate research and analysis at the Union of Concerned Scientists told CNN,

How bad is meat and dairy for the planet? According to FAO, 18 percent of global emissions come from livestock. Lindsay Wilson fromShrink that Footprintlooked at the eco footprints of various diets in America, and he found that the average American has a footprint of 2.5 tCO2e per year (tons of carbon dioxide equivalent) and a meat lover has a footprint of 3.3 tCO2e. By contrast, a vegan footprint is just 1.5 tCO2e!

Or, to put this in terms of water usage,1lb of beef requires 1,800gallons of water. Do the math and youll see that the water used to make 10 hamburgers is well over a years worth of showers.

Yes, you could quit showering for an ENTIRE YEAR and still not save as much water if youd just stop eating meat.

Veganism Is Good for Your Health

Yes, there are some nutritional issues about the vegan diet which need to be considered (but protein isnt one of them!). And, yes, it is possible to eat nothing but junk food and still be vegan. However, numerous studies have shown that the vegan diet is linked to numerous health benefits, including:

Lower Body Weight: People who eat meat are 9 times more likely to be obese than vegans.
Reduced Risk of Heart Disease: Vegans are 32 pecent less likely to get heart disease.
Diabetes: Vegans have half the risk of developing type II diabetes as meat eaters.

So, even if you dont care about animal welfare, go vegan for your fellow man (and woman) kind, the planet, and for yourself!

Image credit: Thinkstock

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

Read article here: 

Why I Am Vegan (And You Should Be Too)

Posted in alo, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why I Am Vegan (And You Should Be Too)

No, the Summer Olympics Will Not Be Leaving Rio

Mother Jones

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

Last week, as Brazil was grappling with the ouster of President Dilma Rousseff, University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran called on the International Olympic Committee to postpone this summer’s Olympic Games in Rio de Janeiro—or move them elsewhere—due to the continued threat of the Zika virus. He argued in the Harvard Public Health Review that exposure to the mosquito-borne virus in the heart of Rio, where he said the number of suspected cases has reached 26,000, could result in a “full-blown global health disaster” and should prompt Olympic officials to take action as a “precautionary concession.”

“Simply put,” wrote Attaran, a legal and medical scholar, “Zika infection is more dangerous, and Brazil’s outbreak more extensive, than scientists reckoned a short time ago.”

For months, would-be Olympians have expressed their concerns about the virus. Some even have refused to participate in this year’s Games. On May 12, the World Health Organization and the Pan American Health Organization reiterated a series of precautions for athletes and tourists planning on attending the Games, like avoiding impoverished and overcrowded parts of Rio and urging pregnant women to not visit Zika-stricken areas. And on Tuesday, after Attaran’s article had prompted a new level of scrutiny, WHO chief Dr. Margaret Chan told reporters the Olympics should go ahead as scheduled: “You don’t want to bring a standstill to the world’s movement of people.”

But at this point, is it even possible to move the multibillion-dollar spectacle? I got in touch with two Olympic insiders—A.D. Frazier, who served as chief operating officer of the Atlanta Olympic Committee, and Olympic historian David Wallechinsky—to see what they thought about a last-minute change. They were…less than optimistic. “Just forget it,” Frazier said. “The International Olympic Committee won’t cancel unless Rio goes completely bankrupt.” Wallechinsky was even more blunt: “I understand that this is no joke, but in terms of moving them at the last minute, unless there was suddenly an epidemic of people falling over dead in Rio, it’s not going to happen.”

Here are the three main reasons why:

It would be unprecedented. Wallechinsky, president of the International Society of Olympic Historians, noted that the only times the Olympics have been canceled were during World War I and World War II. They’ve endured violence before and during the Games: Ten days before the 1968 Summer Games in Mexico City, for example, police and military officers opened fire into a crowd of student demonstrators, killing and wounding hundreds; at the 1972 Summer Games in Munich, 11 members of the Israeli team were killed by terrorists; and in 1996, a bombing during the Atlanta Games killed two and injured more than 100. (Atlanta COO Frazier recalled being briefed about dozens of bomb threats each day during the 17-day event.)

Still, Wallechinsky admitted that Rio 2016’s Zika problem is a unique one. The closest parallel that he could think of came two years ago, when Africa’s Ebola crisis spurred concerns at the summer Youth Olympic Games in Nanjing, China. Officials from China and the International Olympic Committee announced that athletes from affected areas would not be allowed to compete in combat sports or swimming out of fear that athletes could transmit the virus. The event took place as scheduled, but three athletes were unable to compete.

There’s too much cash riding on Rio 2016. “Sponsors and the TV networks have put so much money into these Olympics being in Rio that it’s impossible to imagine moving them at this late date,” Wallechinsky said. The organizing committee, Frazier noted, would have locked in place sponsorship deals and contracts for buses, hotels, and other infrastructure long before the event. Moving the Olympics to a new host city would require advanced notice not just for top international sponsors that typically support the Games, but also for local sponsors like the ones in Brazil helping fund Rio 2016, Wallechinsky said. Local and international sponsor deals account for 52 percent of the Rio Organizing Committee’s revenue, or $962 million, making it the dominant source of funding. (The bulk of those sponsorship agreements were made in 2014, right around the time of World Cup, which was also held in Brazil.)

Earlier this year, organizers trimmed expenses by $500 million to balance its $1.85 billion operating budget, eliminating thousands of seats from venues and taking away televisions from rooms in the Olympic Village. Still, economists project that the overall costs for this year’s events could reach more than $10 billion. “You can’t just pick up and move carte blanche,” Wallechinsky said.

Possible sites would need a “pickup squad” of organizers, fast. Two years ago, rumors surfaced that organizers were considering moving the Rio Games to London—host of the 2012 Olympics—out of concern for Brazil’s preparation. But finding a replacement site at this late stage with available venues is just one piece of the puzzle, Frazier said. Preparing the surrounding roads and infrastructure for a massive influx of athletes, business personnel, and spectators, as well as coordinating a flawless 17-day spectacle in three months with thousands of contractors and vendors, would pose a virtually impossible challenge for the “pickup squad” of organizers who would have come together at the last moment.

And that’s putting aside the travel schedules for the spectators and athletes themselves, as well as the need for safe, comfortable accommodations for athletes at an Olympic village. “The village itself is too complex to start in three months,” Frazier said. “If you’re talking about 15,000 athletes and officials and their safety, do you think somebody would organize a totally secure Olympic village in three months? No, not a chance.” He added that since the Munich Games, the security of the venues and athletes’ housing has been a pressing issue for organizers. Moving an event is one thing, but Frazier noted that moving an entire Games—opening ceremony and all—is “folly.”

“You can’t do it. Two years ago, I would’ve felt differently,” Frazier said. “Today they’ve got three months to go, man. Only a fool would take on the responsibility of taking the Games away from Rio.”

Taken from:

No, the Summer Olympics Will Not Be Leaving Rio

Posted in FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Prepara, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, the Summer Olympics Will Not Be Leaving Rio

Our Barbie Vaginas, Ourselves

Mother Jones

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

One night not long ago while coming home late from a dinner with friends, I passed frat row near the University of California-Berkeley campus. Groups of girls were clacking along the street in their party uniforms: short skirts, bare midriffs, five-inch heels. One of them stopped and lifted her skirt above her waist, revealing a tiny thong, a flat belly, and some righteously toned glutes. She looked happy and strong, laughing, surrounded by friends, having fun. Then she turned toward a building where two bros, appraising the relative “hotness” of those trying to gain entrée to their party, were posted by the door.

Honestly? I didn’t know whether to be impressed or appalled.

I have spent three years interviewing dozens of young women about their attitudes toward and experiences with physical intimacy. On the one hand, girls would enthuse about pop icons like Beyoncé, Gaga, Miley, and Nicki who were actively “taking control” of their sexuality. Whereas earlier generations of feminist-identified women may have seen Kim Kardashian West’s “happy #internationalwomensday” tweet and accompanying nude selfie (Instagram caption: “When you’re like I have nothing to wear LOL”) as something to denounce, many of today’s generation talked about it as an expression rather than an imposition of sexuality—brand promotion done on her own terms.

Young women may not have a million-dollar empire to promote, but they can relate. As one college sophomore told me, she never feels more “liberated” than “when I wear a crop top and my boobs are showing and my legs are showing and I’m wearing super high heels.” She added, “I’m proud of my body, and I like to show it off.”

But a moment later it became clear that unless, through fortuitous genetics or incessant work, you were able to “show off” the right body, the threat of ridicule lurked. The young woman told me that a friend had recently gained some weight. It’s not that she couldn’t wear skimpy clothes, the woman explained. “But she knows how she would feel if there were asshole-y boys who were like, ‘She’s a fat girl.'”

Young women talked about feeling simultaneously free to choose a sexualized image—which was nobody’s damned business but their own—and having no other choice. “You want to stand out,” one college freshman explains. “It’s not just about being hot, but who can be the hottest.”

But as journalist Ariel Levy pointed out in her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs, “hot” is not the same as “beautiful” or “attractive”: It is a narrow, commercialized vision of sexiness that, when applied to women, can be reduced to two words: “fuckable” and “sellable.” No coincidence, Levy added, that this is “the literal job criteria for stars of the sex industry.” And maybe no coincidence that young people are growing up with far more access to porn than ever before. Which means their early ideas about sex are drawn from fiction that has largely been produced for male masturbation.

Perhaps nowhere is that influence more clear than in the emergence of full-frontal waxing. Once the province of fetishists and, yes, porn stars, the Brazilian moved mainstream in 2000, thanks to Sex and the City. (“I feel like one of those freaking hairless dogs!” Carrie complained after visiting an overzealous aesthetician.) In 2003, trendsetter Victoria Beckham declared that Brazilians should be “compulsory” starting at age 15. She may get her wish: A study of two universities, published in 2014, found that nearly half of female college students were entirely hairless and just 4 percent went fully au naturel.

Most young women I met had been removing their pubic hair—all of it—since they were about 14. They cast it as a “personal choice,” saying it made them feel “cleaner.” Yet, when I pressed further, another darker motivation emerged: avoiding humiliation. “I remember all these boys were telling stories about this girl in high school, how she kind of ‘got around,'” one young woman told me. “And people would go down there to finger her, or whatever, and there would be hair, and they were appalled…Guys act like they would be disgusted by it.”

“There’s this real sense of shame if you don’t have your genitals prepared,” agreed Debby Herbenick, an associate professor at Indiana University’s School of Public Health. Herbenick studies something called “genital self-image“—how people feel about their private parts. Women’s feelings about their genitals have been directly linked to their enjoyment of sex, she told me. In interviews with young women, she found that those who were uncomfortable with their genitalia were not only less sexually satisfied, but also more likely to engage in unprotected sex. Herbenick is concerned that young women’s genital self-image is under siege, with more pressure than ever to see their vulvae as unacceptable in their natural state. She recalled a student who started shaving after a boy announced—during one of her class discussions—that he’d never seen pubic hair on a woman in real life, and that if he came across it he’d walk out the door.

There’s no question that a bald vulva is baby smooth—some would say disturbingly so. Perhaps in the 1920s, when women first started shaving their legs and armpits, that act seemed creepily infantilizing, too, but now depilating those areas is a standard rite of passage. That early wave of hair removal was driven by flapper fashions that displayed a woman’s limbs; arms and legs were, for the first time, no longer part of the private realm. Today’s pubic hair removal could be seen the same way: We have opened our most intimate parts to unprecedented scrutiny, evaluation, commodification.

Consider: Largely as a result of the Brazilian trend, cosmetic labiaplasty, the clipping of the folds of skin that make up the vulva, has skyrocketed as well. While it’s still a small slice of overall cosmetic surgeries, according to the American Society for Aesthetic Plastic Surgery, there was a 16 percent rise in the procedure between 2014 and 2015—following a 49 percent jump the previous year. Labiaplasty is rarely under­taken for sexual function or pleasure; it can actually impede both. Never mind: In 2014, Dr. Michael Edwards, the society’s president-elect, hailed the uptick as part of “an ever-evolving concept of beauty and self-confidence.” One sought-after look, incidentally, is called—wait for it—the Barbie: a clamshell-type effect, meaning the outer labia appears fused, with no visible labia minora. I trust I don’t need to remind the reader that Barbie (a) is made of plastic and (b) has no vagina.

It might be tempting to pass off my concerns as the hand-wringing of an older generation. And if all that sexiness were making for better sex, I might embrace it. Yet while young women talked about dress and dep­ilation as things they did for themselves, when they talked about actual sex, that phrase disappeared. Virtually none of the women I met had been told what (or where) a clitoris was. Sex education tends to stick with a woman’s internal parts—uteri, tubes, ovaries. Those classic diagrams of a woman’s reproductive system, the ones shaped like the head of a steer, blur into a gray Y between the legs, as if the vulva and the labia, let alone the clitoris, don’t exist. Whereas we talk about male puberty and the emergence of a near-unstoppable sex drive, female puberty is defined by…periods and the possibility of unwanted pregnancy. When do we talk to girls about desire and pleasure?

Few of the young women I met had ever had an orgasm with a partner, either, though according to one longitudinal study, the percentage of college women who fake it is on the rise, from less than half in the early 1990s to 69 percent in 2013. Meanwhile, a researcher at the University of Michigan found that when asked to talk about good sex, college men are likely to talk about pleasure while women are likely to use their partners’ satisfaction to measure their own.

It’s not surprising that young women feel powerful when they feel “hot”: It’s presented to them over and over as a precondition for success. But the truth is that “hot” tells girls that appearing sexually confident is more important than actually being confident. And because of that, as often as not the confidence that “hot” confers comes off with their clothes.

This article is adapted, in part, from Peggy Orenstein’s new book, Girls & Sex.

Link – 

Our Barbie Vaginas, Ourselves

Posted in alo, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Our Barbie Vaginas, Ourselves

Yet Another State Succumbs to Obamacare’s Greatest Weapon: Math

Mother Jones

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

Oklahoma has been resisting expansion of Medicaid for years, but they might finally be ready to cave in:

A bust in the oil patch has decimated state revenues, compounded by years of income tax cuts and growing corporate subsidies intended to make the state more business-friendly. Oklahoma’s Medicaid agency has warned doctors and other health care providers of cuts of up to 25 percent in what the state pays under Medicaid.

….In the poverty-wracked south­eastern corner of the state, where 96 percent of babies in the McCurtain Memorial Hospital are born to Medicaid patients, most health care would end, said hospital CEO Jahni Tapley. “A 25 percent cut to Medicaid would not put my hospital in jeopardy, because we are already in jeopardy,” Tapley said. “A 25 percent cut would shutter our doors for good, leaving 33,000 people without access to health care.”

….Under the proposal, which would be funded in part with a $1.50-per-pack tax on cigarettes, Oklahoma would shift 175,000 people from its Medicaid rolls onto the federal health exchange created by the Affordable Care Act.

Oklahoma’s governor is calling this “Medicaid rebalancing,” but her constituents are too sharp for her. They know what’s going on: “They can call it Medicaid rebalancing, but there’s only one federal program that offers a 9-to-1 federal match, and that’s Obamacare,” said Johnathan Small, president of the Oklahoma Council on Public Affairs. There’s just no fooling some people.

Anyway, it’s good to see that they’re not planning to fund this with, say, an increase in the income tax or the oil tax or the corporate tax. That might actually hit rich people, and God knows that would be the wrong way to pay for indigent services.

More – 

Yet Another State Succumbs to Obamacare’s Greatest Weapon: Math

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, The Atlantic, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yet Another State Succumbs to Obamacare’s Greatest Weapon: Math