Tag Archives: Mop

The Woman Who Created "Transparent" Wants You to "Borrow White Male Privilege"

Mother Jones

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

FOR TV WRITER and director Jill Soloway, making good television was never enough. “I used to go on pitch meetings and say, ‘I want to write something that’s never been written before, something that’s going to change the world,'” she said at a recent panel. After attracting attention with zany theater experiments, the Chicago-born writer was plucked to work on shows like HBO’s Six Feet Under and Showtime’s United States of Tara.

But her breakthrough arrived when Amazon bought her series, Transparent. Equal parts comedy and melancholy drama, the show follows the three Pfefferman children, who are stumbling to find their truest selves as their father (played by Jeffrey Tambor) transitions into a woman named Maura. Transparent’s much anticipated second season will premiere in December to a more trans-aware culture, one that has largely embraced Caitlyn Jenner and witnessed the hiring of the White House’s first transgender employee. Soloway, 50, deserves some props for this momentum. In 2015, Transparent took home two Golden Globes and five Emmys, including one for directing. But for Soloway, whose own father, or “moppa,” came out as transgender at the age of 75, “to feel like it’s for a larger cause is the most exciting part of all of this.”

Continue Reading »

Read More: 

The Woman Who Created "Transparent" Wants You to "Borrow White Male Privilege"

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Woman Who Created "Transparent" Wants You to "Borrow White Male Privilege"

We Finally Got Around to Ryan Adams’ "1989." Here Are Our Instant Reactions to Every Track.

Mother Jones

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

Editor’s note: Earlier this week, I suggested to our own Ben Dreyfuss that he take a stab at reviewing Ryan Adams’ new adaptation of Taylor Swift’s hit album 1989. Given the chat that Ben and colleague James West published when Swift’s version dropped last October, I figured it was a no-brainer. (I also didn’t necessarily think that I’d be the only one around when it came time to edit it.) Anyway, Ben agreed, and he enlisted Tim McDonnell to tag-team the review, by which I mean chat semi-coherently for what must have been hours.

TRACK 1: “WELCOME TO NEW YORK

Ben Dreyfuss: Here we go.

Tim McDonnell: Seagulls. We’re on an island.

BD: Welcome to New York.

TM: How can you not like this?

BD: It sounds like a theme song to an ’80s sitcom?

TM: I would watch that sitcom. Every episode.

BD: This really does sort of sound like he is stylizing, like, what’s his name from New Jersey? The Boss? Springsteen!

TM: Descending into the Port Authority from New Jersey to fulfill all your dreams.

BD: I bet he was like “Jersey? That’s basically New York. Let’s go with Springsteen.” Chris Christie would love this cover.

TM: Fist-pumping. Watch for this song at future Christie events. So…better than Tay?

BD: No. I mean, look…no.

TM: Or are we just going with the baseline that none of it is better than Tay?

TRACK 2: “BLANK SPACE”

BD: I hate this.

TM: This is definitely the mopey part.

BD: He is such a whiny bitch. I mean, he is SUCH a little crybaby.

TM: I kind of love it. It’s like he’s sitting in your living room playing right to you.

BD: He is the paradigm of a sad little white hipster guitarist.

TM: Okay, but this is actually a pretty sad song. You wouldn’t really know that from the Tay version. There’s so much implied loneliness.

BD: I feel like we’re on a roof after a cast party, and he is trying to find the courage to tell the girl who played opposite him in Skin of Our Teeth that not only is he not gay…he’s actually in love with her.

TM: Tinged with optimism and hope. Also, the reference to old lovers thinking you’re insane.

BD: “If the high was worth the pain.” Babe, it’s always worth the pain.

TM: They’ll tell you I’m insane. BUT I’M NOT OR MAYBE…

BD: “I’M NOT FUCKING INSANE, OKAY? PLEASE BELIEVE ME!”

TM: “I don’t know! Maybe I am! Let’s make out.”

BD: Then you play this sad song in the bathroom and call the therapist in the morning.

TRACK 3: “STYLE”

BD: Yeah, this is different. This is less whiny.

TM: This is very like tech rock—like, I don’t know. Flaming Lips or something.

BD: I like the bass line.

TM: This is what you hear coming from the second-best stage at the music festival, while you’re trying to watch the Red Hot Chili Peppers.

BD: The band that is better than most of them, but still only forgettable.

TM: Not quite good enough for the main stage, but good enough to forget yourself and just dance.

BD: His voice is so weak and sad. I bet Ryan Adams was the dude in college who wrote his feelings into lyrics in a Moleskin.

TRACK 4: “OUT OF THE WOODS”

TM: Okay, now we’re like at the bluegrass festival. Playing at the bandshell in the town square with your mom.

BD: Just an acoustic, a mic, and a few hundred friends in a park in Tennessee. The Town Square Open Mic! And your mom is way too enthusiastic. She’s embarrassing you.

TM: That’s like Ryan Adams’ birthplace probably. He was probably conceived at an open mic.

BD: Can we talk about his voice? It’s so whiny.

TM: It would be better without all the reverb.

BD: Why is it so weak and sad? Maybe he should smoke.

TM: All the indie bands are like obsessed with vocal reverb these days.

BD: I mean, he shouldn’t smoke. Don’t smoke, kids.

TM: No, but he should.

BD: It would make his voice gruffer and sexier.

TM: Smoke more and cut the reverb. Okay, what about the whole concept of this album? What do we think about rewriting whole albums?

BD: The Larger Story. At first I was turned off by the idea.

TM: Especially for an album that just came out.

BD: One song is one thing, but doing a whole album feels like a purposeless re-creation, but I think I was maybe being too conservative. Like, I can see someone doing interesting things with it. Like imagine Fiona Apple redoing a Chili Peppers album. I mean, that sounds terrible.

TM: Is there a threshold of how much different it has to be to make it worthwhile?

BD: There must be a threshold, or else it’s just masturbatory photocopying.

TM: I like how we just completely tuned out the rest of that song. It was putting me to sleep anyway.

BD: Yeah, I hated it. It went on forever.

TRACK 5: “ALL YOU HAD TO DO WAS STAY”

BD: WHO IS THE FAMOUS SINGER HE SOUNDS LIKE? Is it Springsteen?

TM: Kind of. The Springsteen purists would probably not appreciate that comparison. There are other comparisons that are probably better.

BD: Sorry, Springsteen fans. This sounds like it would be perfect at Giants Stadium. Chris Christie is losing himself in a press box. Should we talk about the pronoun changes? Some people had a little cry about it.

TM: Like when boys sing songs that were originally sung by girls.

BD: Their problem was that he changed the pronouns to “she” instead of “he” or whatever. I think it’s a silly criticism. Like it would be really noticeable if he didn’t change them, and that would in and of itself be a statement, which is maybe good or maybe bad. But clearly one he didn’t want to make and that is his right—the right to abstain.

TRACK 6: “SHAKE IT OFF”

BD: Tay’s version is perfect. Perfect pop song.

TM: Carved from a solid block of pop music viral marble.

BD: Birthed from the head of Zeus, the content creator.

TM: This version is more hedged. He doesn’t actually sound like he’s going to shake it off.

BD: He needs to shake it off. But he sounds like actually he is going to die. He is drinking too much and being angry.

TM: He’s repeating the mantra his therapist fed him. “Shake it off.” But he totally doesn’t buy it.

BD: He is going to get in a fistfight outside a bar, get his ass kicked, get in his truck, drive drunk, and kill a bunch of people. SERENITY NOW!

TM: Shake THAT off. Maybe this is what he’s singing immediately after doing that. That’s what it sounds like.

BD: “Sorry, Mr. Adams, you can’t shake off 5-0.”

TM: “Haters gonna hate.”

BD: “I am not a hater. I am a judge. You killed five people.”

TM: Yeah, he is totally unconvinced of his ability to shake it off.

TRACK 7: “I WISH YOU WOULD”

BD: Oh, another acoustic guitar.

TM: The thing with all of these is that he doesn’t really sound like he’s buying the message.

BD: Yeah, that’s a good point.

TM: Tay works because you believe her. She makes you believe her. She is in that car. She is driving straight ahead. That’s why the songs work.

BD: He’s covering her songs in the sense that he’s singing the lyrics, but he’s not playing the part.

TM: You take the same lyrics and put them in Ryan’s mouth and they don’t really add up. I don’t know what he’s standing for.

BD: My main problem with this album is that like it isn’t fun. It sounds like something you would listen to while being overly dramatic about a breakup.

TM: While riding on a train in Europe with like rain streaking down the windows.

BD: YES. He is looking out of the Eurorail, watching Prague go by in an instant, thinking of…

TM: And drinking a whole bottle of wine by himself.

BD: …some girl.

TRACK 8: “BAD BLOOD”

BD: Taylor was writing about Katy Perry. Who do we think Ryan is thinking of while singing this?

TM: Taylor.

BD: AHHAHAHHAHA. I love that.

TM: Wasn’t he married to someone?

BD: Is he the Ryan Adams who created Glee?

TM: Mandy Moore.

BD: She got left behind the aughts with Gossip Girl and James Frey.

TM: “Mandy Moore confirms Ryan Adams split.”

BD: Divorce isn’t very fun.

TM: This album isn’t very fun! I mean, it’s not meant to be fun, I guess.

BD: This album is like something you won’t object to, but it isn’t aiming to win you over. It strives only not to be turned off.

TM: And it’s probably wrong to compare it Tay’s version. It’s its own thing.

BD: But you can’t not compare it. You gotta dance with the one who brung you.

TRACK 9: “WILDEST DREAMS”

BD: So I was at a Taylor Swift-themed SoulCycle last night.

TM: Oh God. Here we go.

BD: And at the end during the stretching they played one of these, and after I walked out, I couldn’t remember what song it was. It just sounded like every other one of his covers.

TM: See, this one kind of works because it’s sort of nostalgic and sad.

BD: Like he’s just reading the words, changing the pronouns, and strumming his dumb acoustic guitar. He sounds like Monsters of Folk. I don’t believe him that it is getting good now. I don’t believe that he knows she’s “so tall.” “SIR, SIR, have you even seen this woman?”

TM: Only from a distance. Restraining order, you know.

BD: Through a telescopic lens. Yeah, I mean, I do feel like this is Songs for the Socially Estranged.

TM: Most of Tay’s songs sound very similar, too, and there’s not a whole lot going on musically, but they’re so fun because she sells the dream.

BD: Tay does the thing where she tries to appeal to every sort of young-adult scenario. Whatever your personal drama in high school is, Taylor has a song for it. This seems all made for the kid who is an emo cutter.

TM: If you strip away the fun, the songs start to fall apart. Tay is good because of Tay.

BD: That’s so true. You can’t strip fun from pop songs, because pop songs are just fantasy nonsense that exist to be fun.

TM: Of course, that would be the message Ryan is trying to telegraph.

TRACK 10: “HOW YOU GET THE GIRL”

BD: His voice is less weak and pathetic here.

TM: But does this sound like he’s getting the girl? No.

BD: No. He sounds upset. He considers this therapy.

TM: This sounds like the girl went home with the jock after prom. After he caught them making out in the bathroom.

BD: Exactly, and now he’s sitting alone on the hood of his car crying in a canyon somewhere, drinking cheap whiskey, playing for whom? He and God and her. Always her. It’s all for her, but then, in reality, he didn’t even love her. He loved the idea of her.

TM: And imagining another life that doesn’t have to be like this.

BD: Thinking that he can’t imagine who he would be had he not had their moments. But what moments did they really have?

TRACK 11: “THIS LOVE”

BD: Ugh. Piano. “My name is Ryan. I can play the piano.”

TM: I think the ones I like more are the more rock and roll ones. There’s a very fine line here between nice music and just falling asleep. I’m already nodding off to this one.

BD: Why did he do this? He must have spent at least some time thinking about this.

TM: Do you think people tried to talk him out of it? “Oh, cool idea…What else are you working on?…Oh, you were serious?”

BD: “Look, Ryan, I like you. I love you. Ryan, I’m your sister. I support you. But this is not a fight you can win.”

TM: “Record it? Like, in a studio?”

BD: “I mean, if you want me to Periscope one song, okay, but…”

TM: “You want the label to pay for this?”

BD: “Have you had a stroke?”

TM: “Look, we know you’re beat up about Mandy.”

BD: “There are other fish in the sea.”

TRACK 12: “I KNOW PLACES”

TM: I like this one. It’s at least different.

BD: The beat is better immediately.

TM: This could be in a Tarantino movie.

BD: Yeah, it’s got style.

TM: Kind of sexy, like we finally left New Jersey and are almost to Mexico City. Sounds like something you could listen to smoking a big joint and driving really fast through the desert in a Jeep.

BD: I do still hate his voice. I know I sound like a broken record, but I hate his voice. “They got the keys, they got the boxes.” Who is he talking about? The landlord? Was he evicted?

TM: If so, he sounds pretty happy about it.

BD: It’s funny that he finally sounds happy in the song about them having to pack up their lives and flee.

TM: That’s what he always wanted anyway. He’s happy to be unhappy.

BD: “They are the hunters, we are the foxes.” Fox hunting isn’t a thing in the US. Are they in Britain?

TM: I wonder if they recorded the whole thing in like one day. First take.

BD: I sort of feel like they may have? “We have 65 minutes. That leaves eight minutes for a smoke break and a three for a piss.”

TRACK 13: “CLEAN”

BD: Okay, so I hate this song even when Taylor sings it. This is my least favorite song on Taylor’s album, so I am open to his being better.

TM: I really think he could have done more on all these to push it to weird new places.

BD: Because he hasn’t!

TM: Yeah, not really.

BD: He’s just played it like any Berklee music student could have.

TM: Apple Music calls this album “intimate” and “disarming.”

BD: “Disarming”? Who the hell is searching for “disarming” on iTunes? They should be on an FBI watchlist for sexual predators.

TM: I actually don’t find it intimate at all.

BD: I don’t know what the hell this is a metaphor for. His heart isn’t in it.

TM: Well, that’s it. Seagulls again. Coney Island?

BD: Okay, I hated that. I hate Ryan Adams.

TM: I mean I wouldn’t necessarily turn it off, but I don’t plan to turn it on again, which is like the opposite of Tay.

BD: Like elevator music, you couldn’t. Okay, I have to run to therapy, but I’ll be back in 30 minutes for final thoughts.

TM: Go have a good cry. At least you can say this is good music to prep for therapy. Therapy pregame with Ryan Adams.

43 minutes later

BD: I am back. I had a very nice therapy.

TM: Did Ryan come up? Could you get the songs out of your head?

BD: He came up in spirit, but I described him as “my friend who is going through some things.”

TM: The only one I can remember now is “Wildest Dreams.” That’s the one that stuck with me.

BD: Which is a good segue into…What was this album all about?

TM: Existential angst ironically channeled through happy pop music

BD: Yes.

TM: Desaturated Taylor Swift. Tay in black and white.

BD: How a constitutionally angsty person can deliver their angst through pop music. “Words mean nothing—it’s all in the the way you say them.”

TM: While Tay is driving to the party, Ryan is hanging his 5 mm B&W portrait of her music on the wall at the art show in the lunchroom on Friday night, alone.

BD: Like a dramatic actor doing a Shakespeare comedy, it’s not going to be funny, but maybe there is some honesty there? Like, some sort of unplugged brutalism? It’s a very sad album. I’m worried about Ryan. I mean, I’m not really worried because, look, people die. But if I knew him better I would be worried. *If I cared.*

TM: So I’m probably not going to listen to that album ever again. It had its moments, but now I just want to listen to the Taylor version. And feel okay about my life again.

BD: I also will never listen. REVIEW: DON’T BUY, but it’s okay in elevators.

Original post: 

We Finally Got Around to Ryan Adams’ "1989." Here Are Our Instant Reactions to Every Track.

Posted in alo, Brita, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Finally Got Around to Ryan Adams’ "1989." Here Are Our Instant Reactions to Every Track.

Chipotle Says It Dropped GMOs. Now a Court Will Decide If That’s Bullshit.

Mother Jones

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

What should have been an easy public-relations win for Chipotle is turning into a major headache—but one that could have interesting repercussions in the public debate about genetically modified organisms.

Back in April, the fast-casual burrito chain announced that it would stop serving food prepared with genetically engineered ingredients. At the time it didn’t seem like a huge change, since only a few ingredients—notably the soybean oil used for frying—contained GMOs. (More than 90 percent of the soy grown in the United States is genetically engineered.) But as critics in the media were quick to point out, there was an obvious hole in Chipotle’s messaging: The pigs, chickens, and cows that produce the restaurant’s meat and dairy offerings are raised on feed made with GMO corn. (In fact, 70-90 percent of all GMO crops are used to feed livestock.) And don’t forget the soda fountain, serving up GMO corn syrup by the cup.

Last week, Chipotle got officially called out, when a California woman filed a class-action lawsuit against the company for allegedly misleading consumers about its much-publicized campaign to cut genetically modified organisms from its menu.

“As Chipotle told consumers it was G-M-Over it, the opposite was true,” the complaint reads. “In fact, Chipotle’s menu has never been at any time free of GMOs.”

Chipotle has never denied that its soda, meat, and dairy contain, or are produced with, GMOs. A spokesman, Chris Arnold, said the suit “has no merit and we plan to contest it.” Still, the case raises an unprecedented set of questions about how food companies market products at a time when fewer than 40 percent of Americans think GMOs are safe to eat (they are) and a majority of them think foods made with GMOs should be labeled.

The California statute applied in the lawsuit deals with false advertising: Allegedly, the “Defendant knowingly misrepresented the character, ingredients, uses, and benefits of the ingredients in its Food Products.” The suit then provides a cornucopia of Chipotle marketing materials, such as the image to the left, which implies that that taco has no GMOs in it—even though, if it contains meat, cheese, or sour cream, then GMOs were almost certainly used at some stage of the process. The suit goes on to detail how Chipotle stands to gain financially from this anti-GMO messaging. The upshot is that, according to the complaint, Chipotle knew its stuff was made from GMOs, lied about it, and duped unsuspecting, GMO-averse customers like Colleen Gallagher (the plaintiff) into eating there. (Gallagher is being represented by Kaplan Fox, a law firm that specializes in consumer protection suits. The firm didn’t respond to a request for comment.)

It will be up to the court to decide whether Gallagher’s claims have any merit. But there’s a big stumbling block right at the beginning: There’s no agreed-upon legal standard for what qualifies a food as being “non-GMO,” and thus no obvious legal test for whether Chipotle’s ad campaign is legit. In fact, several food lawyers I spoke to said this is the first suit to legally challenge the veracity of that specific claim, which means it could set a precedent (in California, at least) for how other companies deal with the issue in the future. That sets it apart from deceptive marketing suits related to use of the word “organic,” for example, for which there is a lengthy legal standard enforced by the US Department of Agriculture. (Organic food, by the way, is not allowed to contain GMOs.)

“There are many definitions of what constitutes non-GMO that are marketing-based definitions,” said Greg Jaffe, biotechnology director at the Center for Science in the Public Interest. “But nothing like the federal standard for organic labeling exists for GMOs at the moment.”

In the context of this lawsuit, that lack of clarity may work to Chipotle’s advantage, said Laurie Beyranevand, a food and ag law professor at Vermont Law School. Without specific guidelines to adhere to, Chipotle could basically be free to make “non-GMO” mean whatever the company wants it to mean (more on that in a minute). The question before the court is about the gap, such as it exists, between Chipotle’s understanding of that term and its customers’ understanding of it, when it comes to the meat, dairy, and soda at the heart of the suit.

Beyranevand said the soda could be a weak point for Chipotle. Even though the company’s website is clear that its soda is made with GMO corn syrup, customers could still be misled by the advertising into thinking it isn’t.

Meat and dairy are a different story, and there’s a bit of existing law that makes Chipotle’s rhetoric seem more defensible. In Vermont, the only state to have passed mandatory GMO labeling laws, meat and dairy products are exempted. And that makes some sense: Even if a chicken has been stuffed full of genetically modified corn its whole life, it’s no more a GMO than I would be if I ate the same corn.

“Chipotle is just sort of riding on the coattails of that state legislation,” Beyranevand said. In other words, Chipotle could have pretty good grounds to argue that a reasonable person wouldn’t confuse its advertising with the notion that livestock aren’t fed GMOs.

Of course, not everyone agrees with Vermont’s approach. That includes the Non-GMO Project, an independent nonprofit that has endorsed nearly 30,000 food products as being non-GMO over the past five years. The group won’t give its stamp of approval to meat products that have been fed GMOs. According to Arnold, Chipotle “would love to source meat and dairy from animals that are raised without GMO feed, but that simply isn’t possible today.”

a GMO by any other name…
Let’s zoom out to the broader issue: Why isn’t there a standard definition for what makes a food product count as “non-GMO”?

The closest thing is a bit of draft language the Food and Drug Administration published in 2001 that was meant as a nonbinding blueprint for companies that want to voluntarily label their foods as non-GMO. Turns out, that simple-sounding phrase is loaded with pitfalls. As “GMO” has gone from a specialized term used by biochemists to describe seeds, to broadly used slang for the products of commercial agriculture, its meaning has gotten pretty garbled. That makes it hard to come up with a legal definition that is both scientifically accurate and makes sense to consumers, and it leaves companies like Chipotle with considerable linguistic latitude.

First of all, there’s the “O” in GMO. A burrito, no matter what’s in it, isn’t really an “organism,” the FDA points out: “It would likely be misleading to suggest that a food that ordinarily would not contain entire ‘organisms’ is ‘organism-free.'” Then there’s the “GM”: Essentially all food crops are genetically modified from their original version, either through conventional breeding or through biotechnology. Even if most consumers use “GMO” as a synonym for biotech, the FDA says, it may not be truly accurate to call an intensively bred corn variety “not genetically modified.”

Finally, there’s the “non”: It might not actually be possible to say with certainty that a product contains zero traces of genetically engineered ingredients, given the factory conditions under which items such as soy oil are produced. Moreover, chemists have found that vegetables get so mangled when they’re turned into oil that it’s incredibly difficult to extract any recognizable DNA from the end product that could be used to test for genetic modification. So it would be hard, if not impossible, for an agency like the FDA to snag your tacos and deliver a verdict on whether they are really GMO-free.

The point is that Chipotle likely isn’t bound to any particular definition of the non-GMO label, and that we just have to take their word that the ingredients they say are non-GMO are, in fact, non-GMO. Lawmakers are attempting to clear up some of this ambiguity: House Republicans, led by Mike Pompeo (Kan.), succeeded in July in passing a bill that would block states from passing mandatory GMO labeling laws similar to Vermont’s. The bill is now stalled in the Senate, but it contains a provision that would require the USDA to come up with a voluntary certification for companies like Chipotle that want to flaunt their GMO-less-ness.

Until then, another solution would is to seek non-GMO certification from the Non-GMO Project, though the group would likely reject Chipotle’s meat products. In any case, Arnold said, neither Chipotle nor its suppliers are certified through the project, and they don’t intend to pursue that option.

“We are dealing with relatively niche suppliers for many of the ingredients we use,” Arnold said. “By adhering to a single certification standard, we can really cut into available supply of ingredients that are, in some cases, already in short supply.”

With all this in mind, here’s a final caveat: When Chipotle has its day in court, how we actually define what is or isn’t a GMO product might not matter too much, explained Emily Leib, deputy director of Harvard’s Center for Health Law. That’s because the California laws in question here are as much about what customers think a term means, as what it actually does mean.

“The court will ask, ‘Is there a definition of non-GMO or not?” Leib said. “They’ll say, ‘No,’ and then they’ll ask, ‘Is this misleading?’ How does this use compare to what people think it means?”

That’s what makes this case interesting, since the truth is that most of the burrito-eating public knows very little about GMOs. Does that make it illegal for Chipotle to leverage peoples’ ambiguous (and mostly unfounded) fears to sell more barbacoa? We’ll have to wait and see. In the meantime, probably don’t eat too much Chipotle, anyway.

Read original article – 

Chipotle Says It Dropped GMOs. Now a Court Will Decide If That’s Bullshit.

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chipotle Says It Dropped GMOs. Now a Court Will Decide If That’s Bullshit.

One Important Suicide Fact That Nobody Is Talking About

Mother Jones

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

We hear about gun violence in blips: The latest mass shooting or grizzly homicide brings national attention and calls to action, and then the issue falls under the radar. It’s easy to forget that two-thirds of gun deaths aren’t high-profile homicides, but suicides—happening quietly, at a rate of one every 25 minutes.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

A new report by the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence, a gun safety advocacy group, delivers sobering stats based on data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and academic journal articles—perhaps the most eye-opening being that keeping a firearm at home increases the risk of suicide by three times. A whopping 82 percent of teens who commit suicide with a gun are using a family member’s firearm.

Guns are a particularly effective means of suicide precisely because they are so lethal: Of those who attempt suicide by firearm, nine in 10 succeed. By contrast, only one in 50 overdose attempts result in death. The lethality is compounded by impulsivity: The majority of suicide attempts occur less than an hour after the decision is made to commit suicide.

One common argument of the gun lobby is that suicidal individuals will find a way to take their lives—if they don’t die by gun, they’ll do it by some other means. But the reality is that 90 percent of those who fail in a suicide attempt do not end up dying by suicide. With guns, though, not many get a second chance.

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence

Source article: 

One Important Suicide Fact That Nobody Is Talking About

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on One Important Suicide Fact That Nobody Is Talking About

John Kasich Was Against Poor People Before He Was for Them

Mother Jones

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

In the crowded field of GOP presidential hopefuls, Ohio Gov. John Kasich has earned a reputation as a moderate conservative on fiscal issues. He often brings up his empathy for the economic problems facing regular Americans, from burdensome health care costs to ballooning student debt and unemployment. Last year, at a biannual retreat for donors organized by conservative megadonors the Koch brothers, an attendee confronted Kasich about his decision to expand Medicaid in Ohio. “When I get to the pearly gates,” Kasich fired back, “I’m going to have an answer for what I’ve done for the poor.”

When he arrives at those pearly gates, he may have some explaining to do. The tax policies Kasich has championed and implemented since he was elected governor in 2010 left Ohio’s low-income folks worse off than they were decades ago. His economic policies have led to growing inequality in a state that should be in recovery. Median household incomes began falling in 2007 and continued to drop during Kasich’s governorship. They are currently lower than they were in 1984, even though the overall state economy has actually grown healthier.

“The real reason this growth has not translated into gains for the middle and working class is that an increasingly large share of the state’s economic gains has been directed to those at the top,” wrote researchers David Madland and Danielle Corley in a Center for American Progress report published last month.

When Kasich launched his bid for governor in 2009, the state was reeling from the recession, when Ohio lost almost 400,000 jobs. Kasich’s campaign promised to “right the ship,” using leaner budgets to boost employment and helps recovery. His big strategy: phasing out the personal income tax in Ohio, a goal that Kasich highlighted in nearly all of his campaign speeches. He argued that the tax hurt Ohio’s ability to attract businesses and new residents.

“We’ll march over time to destroy that income tax that has sucked the vitality out of this state,” Kasich said when he kicked off his bid for governor. He called getting rid of the income tax “absolutely essential” for the state, “so that we no longer are an obstacle for people to locate here and that we can create a reason for people to stay here.” He did acknowledge, however, that the state’s dire budget situation would make this difficult to do in his first term.

Nonetheless, when Kasich began his first term as governor, he sought to slash a different tax by proposing to eliminate Ohio’s income tax on capital gains, the profits that come from selling off assets like stocks or bonds. Kasich is intimately familiar with the hefty benefits the wealthy glean from this sort of tax, having worked for nearly eight years as an investment banker at Lehmann Brothers. Had he been successful, roughly three-fourths of the cut’s financial gain would have gone to the top 1 percent of Ohio’s earners, while middle-class taxpayers would have gotten an average tax cut of just $2. Kasich abandoned the extreme proposal after learning that the measure might be unconstitutional.

Still, the two-year budget that Kasich ultimately enacted was filled with tax breaks for the rich that would simultaneously hurt middle-class families. The budget either created or tweaked more than a dozen tax breaks for various industries, including energy and agriculture. Policy Matters Ohio, an economic policy research nonprofit, pointed out at the time that the lost government revenue from the budget’s tax cuts, new and old, would amount to about $7 billion a year—a big chunk came from money saved by industry and the wealthy as opposed to low- and middle-income families.

Perhaps the most debilitating cut Kasich introduced in the 2011 budget was the successful repeal of Ohio’s estate tax. This was another tax he vowed to eliminate during his bid for governor, telling audiences repeatedly that the tax was driving out successful Ohioans. He’s often joked that entrepreneurs were “moving to Florida,” which doesn’t have an estate tax.

In fact, when it still existed, the tax took just 6 or 7 percent of estates valued over $338,333—the lowest estate tax rate of any state—and affected only the wealthiest 8 percent of the state’s residents. Nearly all estate tax revenue (80 percent) went to fund local governments. The tax’s repeal meant that local governments statewide lost more than $200 million, leading to cuts in critical services, including public safety workers like police officers and firefighters, city planning, recreation, and emergency response. Cuts like this, says Wendy Patton, a senior project director at Policy Matters Ohio, tend to hit low-income communities harder.

“For example, the city of Toledo closed some pools. What is the impact on the family when the children don’t have a safe place to play for their summer recreation?” Patton says. “This is more important to a family that can’t purchase a pass to a private pool, and depends on public recreation centers. It’s an issue of greater importance when you go down the income scale.”

In the 2013 budget process, Kasich introduced still more tax cuts. His final budget package cut income tax rates by 10 percent and increased the state’s sales tax, moves that tilted the tax system to benefit wealthier families. This is because while income taxes are progressive, meaning different income brackets pay a proportional share, sales taxes are regressive: When the same percentage applies to everyone, it cuts deeper into the overall income of lower earners.

“The move to a higher sales tax and a lower income tax exacerbates inequality,” Patton says. “As the tax structure in Ohio becomes even more regressive, poor people pay a larger share of their income than wealthy people do.”

Kasich often points to his introduction of the 5 percent Earned Income Tax Credit in the state as another example of his compassionate conservatism. A version of this credit—a federal tax break for low-income working families adjusted based on income, marital status, and number of kids—is also implemented at the state level in 26 other states. Kasich has touted Ohio’s EITC, which he introduced in the 2013 budget, as an example of his commitment to helping the working poor.

In fact, the credit did little to help Ohio’s poorest families for two reasons: first, because it is nonrefundable, and then because it was introduced in the context of other tax changes that disproportionately burdened the poor. Both the federal credit and most states’ credits are refundable, which means that those who receive them often receive a greater refund at the end of the year. Not so in Ohio. Kasich’s nonrefundable credit doesn’t increase a family’s tax refund—it can only reduce the taxes already owed. This primarily hurts those who need the credit most: low-earning households that owe little to no taxes. Ohio is also the only state that caps its EITC.

Kasich’s credit was part of a budget that resulted in an overall tax increase for the bottom 40 percent of taxpayers, due to the rise in the sales tax and other tweaks. In 2015, for the third time in his tenure as governor and at the beginning of his second term, he proposed more cuts to income taxes and yet another jump in the sales tax from 5.75 percent to 6.25 percent. Ultimately, the budget compromise implemented an income tax cut (though a smaller one than Kasich had suggested), an additional sales tax for cigarettes, and an increased tax cut for businesses, among other measures.

Once again, the budget brought tax savings for the wealthy, and higher taxes for those who can least afford them. An analysis of the 2015 budget by the Institute of Taxation and Economic Policy found that about half the benefit of the tax cuts, totaling about $1 billion, would go into the pockets of the top 1 percent of Ohioans, while the only group that would see a tax increase was the bottom 20 percent of earners.

In spite of this layering of tax cuts, Kasich the presidential candidate has repeatedly trumpeted his commitment to helping the poor. “If you pick up Psalm 41, you know what the first couple of lines are? You’ll be remembered for what you do for the poor,” Kasich said in a Fox News interview in July. “You can’t allow people to be stuck in the ditch. You’ve got to help them to get out…And that’s what we’re doing in this state.”

But the reality in Ohio isn’t so optimistic. “The tax cuts are shifting the tax system so it is more dependent on lower- and middle-income taxpayers and less dependent on those who are most able to pay,” says Zach Schiller, research director at Policy Matters Ohio. “Wages have not gone up in a meaningful way for the bulk of Ohioans, and we are taking funds needed for municipalities and giving them to people who don’t need it. It’s a shocking set of priorities.”

Continued here:

John Kasich Was Against Poor People Before He Was for Them

Posted in Anchor, Anker, ATTRA, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on John Kasich Was Against Poor People Before He Was for Them

James Bond Gives $50,000 to a Sketchy Bernie Sanders Super-PAC

Mother Jones

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

James Bond’s latest attempt to save the world didn’t involve blowing things up or chasing down bad guys. Instead, Daniel Craig, the Englishman who plays Bond, acted with his wallet, making a healthy donation to support his preferred presidential candidate: Bernie Sanders. But in doing so, he may have played into a villain’s hands.

Over the summer, Craig donated nearly $50,000 to a super-PAC called Americans Socially United, which claims to support the Vermont senator’s dark-horse bid for the Democratic nomination, according to the Center for Public Integrity (CPI). The pro-Sanders super-PAC is run by a self-described lobbyist, Cary Lee Peterson, who “has routinely run afoul of creditors and the law,” with two outstanding warrants in the state of Arizona. The group was initially called “Ready for Bernie Sanders 2016” and “Bet on Bernie 2016,” both illegal uses of the candidate’s name that caused confusion for Sanders supporters who accidentally donated to Peterson’s PAC instead of the campaign. Peterson’s group has not filed the legally required campaign finance disclosures, CPI reports.

Moreover, Sanders, who supports campaign finance reform, doesn’t want super-PACs supporting his campaign and has asked Americans Socially United to stop its efforts on his behalf. His campaign sent Peterson a cease and desist letter in June, which Peterson continues to disregard.

But Peterson contends that he is simply trying to support his favorite candidate. “You don’t need to look back on my past,” Peterson told CPI. “I’m going out there trying to make a difference.”

Thus far, Craig is sticking to his guns, too. “Currently, I have been informed of no evidence to question that my donation has not been used as intended,” he told CPI. “Should that situation occur, then clearly, I will review my position.”

Super-PACs, which are largely unregulated by the Federal Election Commission, can get away with a lot. As attorney Paul Ryan explained to CPI, the people running these super-PACs could legally use the money they raise “to buy a yacht and sail off into the sunset.”

Originally posted here:  

James Bond Gives $50,000 to a Sketchy Bernie Sanders Super-PAC

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on James Bond Gives $50,000 to a Sketchy Bernie Sanders Super-PAC

Obama’s Climate Plan Just Won Another Key Victory in Court

Mother Jones

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

Last year, President Barack Obama released an early version of his plan to crack down on carbon dioxide emissions from power plants—the cornerstone of his climate change agenda. Right away, a dozen coal-reliant states and coal companies fired back with a pair of lawsuits aimed at blocking the plan from going into effect. The challenges failed: A federal court in DC ruled that they would have to wait until the rules were finalized.

They tried again last month, when the final details were announced. But this afternoon, they got smacked down again because the rules, while now final, still haven’t been published in the federal register (that process typically takes months). Here’s the ruling:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/2392311-obamas-clean-power-plan-just-won-an-important.js”,
width: 630,
height: 400,
sidebar: false,
text: false,
pdf: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-2392311-obamas-clean-power-plan-just-won-an-important”
);

Once again, the complaining parties were just too eager to chomp at the bit, said David Doniger, director of climate policy at the Natural Resources Defense Council. Counting this challenge, the previous one, and several prior attempts to squelch Obama’s climate plan, he said, “they’re batting 0-8 in premature challenges.”

“It’s not a great track record. You don’t want to bring a succession of losing cases, because you get a bad reputation before the court.”

The battle isn’t over yet: You can count on the same cast of characters trying the same shenanigans when the rule is finally published sometime in October.

Link:  

Obama’s Climate Plan Just Won Another Key Victory in Court

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Obama’s Climate Plan Just Won Another Key Victory in Court

Everything You Need to Know About California Climate Change in One Chart

Mother Jones

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

You’ve heard a lot about California’s current historic drought. But the state is also experiencing some of the hottest temperatures on record, and the latest data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show just how warm the past couple years have been. In the graph below, courtesy of a tweet from the Pacific Institute’s Peter Gleick, each dot represents the average temperature over the course of a year, from September of one year to August of the following.

NOAA

Continued: 

Everything You Need to Know About California Climate Change in One Chart

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Everything You Need to Know About California Climate Change in One Chart

Health Insurance Companies Are Even More Horrible If You’re Trans

Mother Jones

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

Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services proposed new rules to crack down on pervasive health care discrimination against transgender men and women. The draft rules address forms of discrimination that were banned years ago on paper but remain a constant feature in many transgender individuals’ dealings with doctors and insurance companies—from being refused basic services such as blood tests to not being reimbursed for health care screenings such as Pap smears or prostate exams.

If approved, the rules would force many health care providers and insurers across the country to provide transgender patients with the same medical treatments and level of care they provide to nontransgender people—parity that most insurers never even approach.

In a recent survey of transgender men and women by the National Center for Transgender Equality and National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 19 percent of people polled reported that someone refused them medical care because of their gender identity. Twenty-eight percent had postponed medical care because of discrimination, and half reported that they had to explain transgender health issues to their own doctors. These practices have contributed to disproportionately negative health outcomes for transgender people compared with the general population, such as staggering rates of depression, suicide, and HIV.

A series of actions at the federal level to end such discrimination did little to change the reality for most transgender patients. When it passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act included a provision that explicitly barred many providers from sex discrimination. In 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services clarified that sex discrimination included discrimination against transgender patients on the basis of gender identity. A federal court in Minnesota backed up that interpretation in March this year, giving transgender people the ability to sue. But states still have broad authority to determine what actually constitutes discrimination—leaving a substantial loophole when it comes to enforcing protections.

The rules proposed last Thursday do not compel insurers to cover the medical components of the transition process, such as hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. But Mara Keisling, the founder and director of the National Center for Transgender Equality, stresses that health care discrimination goes far beyond transition treatments. It can be as simple as “access to hospital rooms,” says Keisling. “Being placed with a roommate of the wrong sex.” Transgender patients have reported being forced to undergo a pelvic exam when going to the doctor for a sore throat or being grilled at length about their gender identity and sexual history when seeking treatment for a broken arm. Keisling adds that insurance companies routinely refuse transgender men and women sex-specific preventive care—such as mammograms or prostate exams. These rules would force insurers to cover whatever preventive services a doctor finds necessary, regardless of what gender is listed in the patient’s medical history.

Thirty-seven-year-old Seth Marlow’s medical history reads like a catalog of such abuses. Marlow works in health care IT and is well connected in transgender advocacy circles. But even he has struggled to get basic medical care. At one point, Marlow says, he was unable to have routine blood work done because a doctor he visited said his Christian faith prevented him from treating Marlow. His previous insurance company refused to pay for a fertility clinic to extract and freeze his eggs—which was one of the insurer’s covered benefits—seemingly because he identified as a man.

“As much as there’s this great transgender tipping point,” Marlow says. “I still can’t get health care.”

Part of his problems stem from the fact that until this year, the Obama administration did not define what discrimination specifically means. That definition was originally left up to the states, and only a handful have applied the protections in the Affordable Care Act to transgender people.

Marlow now lives in Virginia, a state that has not enacted any of these protections. The health care plan he purchased on the Obamacare exchanges routinely denies him coverage for hormone therapy, even though the insurer covers the same hormone treatments for other, nontransgender patients. More recently, Marlow’s insurer refused to cover his annual pelvic exam and pap smear. In a September letter that Marlow shared with Mother Jones, his insurer suggested he contact his state legislator if he was unhappy with Virginia law.

“I’ve spent probably 10 years of my life fighting these exclusions,” he says. “On paper, I’m protected. But in practice, I’m getting blown off and shut down at every turn.”

Most civil rights advocates point out that these actions by insurance companies are already illegal under the Affordable Care Act, and when such cases go to court, they are usually settled in favor of transgender litigants. But legal action is time-consuming, costly, and undertaken when there are no other options. “After they announced the rule, I went to our Facebook page,” Keisling says. “And person after person was saying, well that’s great, but I doubt it will help me.”

Marlow is also skeptical that the proposed rules will reduce health care discrimination, given that many rules were already in place and not enforced. “I’m so jaded and so tired that it’s hard to believe this is going to make any difference,” Marlow continues. “There’s a little progress. But it’s painfully, gruelingly slow.”

Original link – 

Health Insurance Companies Are Even More Horrible If You’re Trans

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Health Insurance Companies Are Even More Horrible If You’re Trans

Vladimir Putin Says He Wants to Join the Fight Against ISIS

Mother Jones

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

Russia is a longtime supporter of the Assad regime in Syria, but lately the flow of military aid from Russia to Syria has been on the rise. Apparently this has given rise to scuttlebutt that Vladimir Putin may be hoping to lure the US into a joint effort to fight ISIS:

Observers in Moscow say the Russian maneuvering could be part of a plan to send troops to Syria to fight the Islamic State group in the hope of fixing fractured ties with the West….By playing with the possibility of joining the anti-IS coalition, Putin may hope to win a few key concessions. His main goal: the lifting of Western sanctions and the normalization of relations with the United States and the European Union, which have sunk to their lowest point since the Cold War amid the Ukrainian crisis.

….Sergei Karaganov, the founder of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, a leading association of Russian political experts, said that Russia was considering the possibility of joining the anti-IS coalition, but the West so far has been unwelcoming. “They are reluctant to accept proposals from Putin, whom they want to contain,” he said.

Karaganov, who has good connections among the Russian officials, said he doesn’t expect Russia to opt for unilateral military action in Syria if it gets the cold shoulder from the U.S. and its allies. “It would involve enormous risks,” he said.

This sounds mighty weird. Even Putin can’t seriously imagine that the US and Iraq would join a Putin-Assad alliance, no matter what its goal is. I wonder what’s really going on here?

Original source: 

Vladimir Putin Says He Wants to Join the Fight Against ISIS

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Vladimir Putin Says He Wants to Join the Fight Against ISIS