Tag Archives: mother

Chart of the Day: There’s Still No Wage Pressure in the US Economy

Mother Jones

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

This is just a reminder from Jared Bernstein, who analyzed five different measures of wage growth to produce the chart below. Ever since the end of the Great Recession, wage growth has been under 2 percent. It’s still under 2 percent, and shows no signs of increasing. This is yet another indication that the recovery is weak, the labor market has a lot of slack, and there’s no inflation in sight.

Read original article – 

Chart of the Day: There’s Still No Wage Pressure in the US Economy

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: There’s Still No Wage Pressure in the US Economy

Condom Companies: Twitter Is Censoring Us

Mother Jones

Most businesses that accept advertising—from magazines and television networks to news websites and Facebook—accept ads for condoms. But earlier this year, Melissa White, the CEO of Lucky Bloke Condoms, learned that there’s one major exception: Twitter.

For months, Twitter had spammed White with emails encouraging her to try sending a promoted Tweet—a paid advertisement that shows up in other users’ tweet streams. But when she finally sent one—a relatively anodyne message asking readers if they were “tired of lousy condoms”—it was quickly rejected. “Your account is ineligible to participate in the Twitter ads program at this time based on the Twitter Ads adult sexual products and services policy,” Twitter wrote to her. Baffled, White wrote a piece for RH Reality Check complaining about how her company was treated.

A Twitter spokesman says the company “allows and encourages ads from condom companies and safer sex education organizations,” noting that condom giant Durex and a number of HIV and STD awareness campaigns have advertised on the social network. But several condom companies and safe-sex advocates say that the Durex campaign was the exception, not the rule—and that in practice, Twitter bans most condom advertising and safe-sex advocacy from its promoted tweets program.

Courtesy of Melissa White

Courtesy of Melissa White

Twitter’s advertising policy, which says the company bans “the promotion of adult or sexual products and services,” including “contraceptives,” only confuses the issue. The multi-page policy goes on to clarify that Twitter allows condom ads, but only if they are targeted at Australia, Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, or the US—and then only if they “comply with all local laws,” and “do not contain or link to any sexual content.” (That can be a challenge, given that condoms are used for sex.) White says she “was aware” of the geographical restrictions in Twitter’s condom ad policies and “was very careful to select only countries approved in that section.” She only targeted users who were over 18 and followers of “sex and relationship personalities,” such as Dan Savage and Emily Morse. But she was blocked from the program anyway—and Twitter won’t explain why, either to White or to Mother Jones.

White isn’t the only person complaining that Twitter’s rules about sexual content in ads are too strict. Last October, Jenelle Marie, founder of The STD Project, a site that offers resources for people suffering from sexually transmitted diseases, tried to use the promoted tweets program to send out a link to her site. Her first promoted tweet, which Marie recalls saying “STD? It’s Ok! We can help,” was deleted. Marie says she was “surprised” and “disconcerted” that Twitter wasn’t allowing her to promote safe sex. Third party ads on her site—which occasionally include condom ads—might have been to blame, she says. Twitter rejects sexual content if it’s in either the tweet itself or on the landing page of the link.

Several other small companies have similar complaints. Momdoms, a company that sells vintage tins with sex jokes for a “less awkward birds and bees talk,” was booted from the promoted tweets program after tweeting out a YouTube video advertising its products. Bedsider, a “birth control support network” that provides information and support on birth control topics and options, still tweets, but has twice been temporarily banned.

White’s negative experience is preventing other companies from trying the ad program in the first place. Jason Panda, the head of b condoms, a condom manufacturer that aims to promote healthy lifestyles among minority populations, says he “heard about what’s happened with Lucky Bloke” and decided investing in promoted tweets wasn’t worth the hassle. “We were interested in shifting our advertising to begin promoting tweets and advertising on Twitter because it’s a powerful way to connect with the underserved communities that we target,” Panda wrote in an email. “However, it’s hard to promote safe sex when awesome tools like Twitter block companies like ours from reaching the communities that need the information the most.”

Condoms, which the US Food and Drug Administration classifies as medical devices, may be considered scandalous on Twitter, but they’re widely available in stores. There is no federal age restriction on the purchase of condoms in the United States; anyone, even a child, can legally walk into a pharmacy and purchase a condom.

White sees this moment as an opportunity for Twitter. “Twitter’s current policies are out-dated, irresponsible and even dangerous,” she says. “For Twitter, this presents a chance to demonstrate an enlightened, mature, up-to-date understanding of user safety and extend their global reach to their users on matters of sexual health—by providing info with true life-saving potential.”

View original post here:  

Condom Companies: Twitter Is Censoring Us

Posted in alo, Anchor, Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Condom Companies: Twitter Is Censoring Us

Verizon Says It Wants to Kill Net Neutrality to Help Blind, Deaf, and Disabled People

Mother Jones

Verizon lobbyists are canvassing Capitol Hill with a curious new argument against net neutrality—it hurts disabled people.

The odd pitch comes as the Obama administration is mulling a plan to scrap net neutrality—the idea that Internet service providers should treat all websites equally—and instead allow ISPs to create Internet “fast lanes” for companies that can afford to pay for speedier service. The proposal, which is under consideration by the Federal Communications Commission, has sparked a massive public outcry, including an “Occupy the FCC” protest and a letter signed by 150 tech companies, including Google, Amazon, and Netflix, opposing the plan.

Three Hill sources tell Mother Jones that Verizon lobbyists have cited the needs of blind, deaf, and disabled people to try to convince congressional staffers and their bosses to get on board with the fast lane idea. But groups representing disabled Americans, including the National Association of the Deaf, the National Federation of the Blind, and the American Association of People with Disabilities are not advocating for this plan. Mark Perriello, the president and CEO of the AAPD, says that this is the “first time” he has heard “these specific talking points.”

There’s no doubt that blind and deaf people, who use special online services to communicate, need access to zippy Internet. Similarly, smartphone-based medical devices that are popular with disabled people require fast Internet service. Telecom industry lobbyists have argued that, without a fast lane, disabled Americans could get stuck with subpar service as Internet traffic increases. AAPD’s Perriello says this rationale could be genuine but seems “convenient.”

Defenders of net neutrality are more cynical. The Verizon lobbyists’ argument is “disingenuous,” says Matt Wood, a policy director at Free Press, an Internet freedom advocacy group. The FCC says that even if the agency doesn’t go through with its fast lane proposal, companies that serve disabled people would still be able to pay internet service providers for faster service.

A spokesman for Verizon wouldn’t confirm that Verizon lobbyists have used the disabled access pitch, but he says the company’s position on the FCC’s proposal is “not disingenuous.” (Verizon has not taken a public stance on the FCC’s proposed fast lane rule.) An FCC spokesman says the agency is evaluating the industry’s disability argument.

The roots of the net neutrality fight go back more than a decade. In 2002, the George W. Bush-era FCC decided to classify the internet as an “information service” instead of a public utility, protecting internet services from the stringent regulations that land line phones fall under. For years, free Internet advocates urged the FCC to reclassify the internet, but the commission resisted.

Last month, the FCC dealt a major blow to net neutrality by proposing new rules that would allow Internet service providers to charge online content providers such as Facebook and Netflix higher rates for faster service. The move caused a national outcry. Last week, the FCC’s website crashed after comedian John Oliver urged Internet “trolls” to comment at the agency’s website. In response to public ire, the FCC has said it will reconsider classifying the Internet as a common utility.

The telecom industry is striving to ensure that the agency doesn’t do that. In 2014 alone, Internet service providers have spent close to $19 million lobbying on net neutrality, according to Senate lobbying records:

Overall, ISP lobbying has exploded over the past decade:

This is not the first time the industry has cited the needs of disabled people as it sought to influence FCC rules. Verizon made this argument five years ago when the commission was drafting new regulations for ISPs. In a 2009 speech, former Verizon Communications CEO Ivan Seidenberg said that if his company was not allowed to prioritize certain medical data over internet traffic like email and spam, then people with health conditions might not benefit from life-saving technological advances.

The decision the FCC makes in the coming months could “change the course of the Internet for a long time to come,” says Michael Copps, who served as an FCC commissioner from 2001 to 2011, “perhaps in ways that will be impossible to reverse.”

Original post – 

Verizon Says It Wants to Kill Net Neutrality to Help Blind, Deaf, and Disabled People

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, Free Press, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Verizon Says It Wants to Kill Net Neutrality to Help Blind, Deaf, and Disabled People

We Hate Each Other, We Really Hate Each Other

Mother Jones

Pew has released a gigantic survey report on political polarization in America, and everyone will find fascinating nuggets throughout. The most consistent takeaways are these:

Polarization has increased considerably over the past few decades.
Both sides have moved away from the center, but conservatives have moved further.
Both sides tend to be more cocooned than in the past, but more conservatives live in a bubble than liberals.
Conservatives vote a helluva lot more than liberals. But you already knew that.

Here are three of my favorite charts from the report, picked semi-randomly. First up is one that I choose to interpret as supporting my view of Fox News as the primary source of the most toxic Gingrichian tendencies in the Republican Party. Take a look at the right side of this chart. Among consistent liberals, their dislike of the Republican Party goes down in the late 90s, then up in the aughts, then down again after 2010. This seems reasonably explainable by a growing antipathy whenever a Republican is president.

Now look at the left side. There’s no such trend. Among consistent conservatives, dislike of the Democratic Party just goes up and up and up. These are the most rabid Fox watchers, and I’d submit that this is the most likely explanation for their skyrocketing hatred of Democrats.

Second, here’s what people do and don’t like. As every liberal has insisted forever, and as every conservative has vociferously denied just as long, conservatives are much more likely to be open racists. The more conservative you are, the more likely you are to be unhappy if a family member marries someone of another race. This is in the year 2014.

In the spirit of equal time, you see exactly the same dismay among liberals at the prospect of a family member marrying a gun owner. In fairness, however, gun ownership is an active personal choice that informs a person’s character, so this is more defensible.

Third, here’s yet more confirmation that atheists are still the most distrusted people in the country. An astounding 73 percent of consistent conservatives would be unhappy if a family member married a conservative. Hell, even 24 percent of consistent liberals would be unhappy at the prospect. Jeebus.

View post: 

We Hate Each Other, We Really Hate Each Other

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We Hate Each Other, We Really Hate Each Other

Are the Director and Star of "Obvious Child" Concerned About Anti-Abortion Backlash?

Mother Jones

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

Obvious Child is being widely described as an “abortion comedy“—a catchy, if inadequate, designation. The movie (directed and co-written by Gillian Robespierre, and starring Saturday Night Live alum Jenny Slate) does involve abortion and funny jokes, many of which are about abortion and farting, among other topics. But Obvious Child is much more than the “abortion comedy” designation might lead you to believe.

“We were confident that our take on this story was thoughtful, and heartfelt, and that the comedy was funny and not for shock value,” Slate tells Mother Jones.

The film follows New York-based comedian Donna Stern (played by Slate) who, after losing both her day job and her unfaithful boyfriend, engages in what she thinks is just a one-night stand—which leads to an unwanted pregnancy. She decides to have an abortion at Planned Parenthood, and she schedules it for Valentine’s Day. The result is a witty, honest, and affecting romantic comedy that addresses a charged issue with unexpected clarity. The Huffington Post called it, “the year’s most revolutionary film.”

Obvious Child does not push a political agenda, but there is little chance of that stopping anyone who is paid to be upset by this sort of thing from, well, being upset by it. “Has Hollywood hit a new low?” the Daily Caller asked. “Here’s a new oxymoron, even for the liberal media: abortion comedy,” NewsBusters decried. “Apparently nothing sounds funnier than an unplanned one-night stand and a courageous destruction of God’s most beautiful and most innocent creation,” Brent Bozell wrote at Townhall.com.

The film premiered in New York last week, and is getting a slow theatrical roll-out elsewhere starting this Friday. As it garners more attention, it’ll likely piss off more people. Fortunately, this doesn’t seem to be much of a concern for Robespierre or Slate. “Whatever other conversation occurs, we’re really excited,” Robespierre says. “Conservatives bashing Obvious Child haven’t seen the movie; they’re basing it on articles and trailers.”

“You know, we just set out to make this story. We weren’t thinking about anything but making this story,” Slate says. When I asked them if they were looking forward to the moment when Rush Limbaugh gets ahold of the movie, Slate replied, “We’re looking forward to people seeing our movie, and enjoying it.”

On the other side of the reproductive-rights debate, people are certainly enjoying, and endorsing, the film. “Honest portrayals about abortion in film and television are extremely rare, and that’s part of a much bigger lack of honest depictions of women’s lives, health, and sexuality,” Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “This film is a major breakthrough—not just because it shows a woman deciding to have an abortion but because it shows her as a full and complete person making the serious decision to end a pregnancy and still having a full and fun life.”

Planned Parenthood also consulted on the development and production of Obvious Child, vetting the script and allowing them to shoot in a clinic in New Rochelle, New York. “They were so supportive, a real friend of the film,” Robespierre says. “They read a draft of the script, they loved it, and they were so enthusiastic that we were making a movie that sort of takes away the stigma of the choice. The character is not hard on herself, and she’s not ashamed, and not judgmental. And it’s a positive, safe procedure.” Planned Parenthood then offered a few notes on the screenplay (what a nurse at one of their clinics would say to a patient, for instance). A few Planned Parenthood employees can be seen in the film as extras. “They were big fans of Jenny,” Robespierre recalls.

Robespierre became a big fan of Jenny after she saw her perform stand-up in Brooklyn in 2009, at a bar behind a record store. “We finished the script but hadn’t cast the role of Donna yet, and there she was, blowing us away with this confessional style of comedy,” Robespierre says. “She was talking about when she was a little girl she would hump furniture in her house.” The pair then made a 2009 short film, also called Obvious Child, which then became the feature they’re promoting today.

“We don’t describe our film as an ‘abortion comedy’; I don’t think that’s a thing, you know?” Slate says. “I understand that it’s something that might draw readers. But for us, it’s the funny, and heartwarming, and new story of one woman at this time in her life.”

“Yeah, we don’t like boring shit,” Slate continues, summing things up.

“Yeah, fuck that!” Robespierre says.

View original post here: 

Are the Director and Star of "Obvious Child" Concerned About Anti-Abortion Backlash?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are the Director and Star of "Obvious Child" Concerned About Anti-Abortion Backlash?

Can You Guess When Violent Crime in Our Schools Peaked?

Mother Jones

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

Via Tim Lee, here’s a pretty interesting chart from a newly released report on crime in schools. It shows the rate of violent crime committed on campus: rape, robbery, assault, and sexual assault.1 And it sure looks pretty familiar, doesn’t it? It peaks in 1993, about 18 years after leaded gasoline started being phased out in 1975, then turned down and continued declining for the next 20 years.

Since the oldest students in our schools are 18 years old, the crime rate should start to flatten out approximately 18 years after the final elimination of leaded gasoline in 1995. That would be 2013. And so far, it looks like that’s about what’s happening.

All the usual caveats apply. This isn’t proof, it’s just a data point. But it’s a pretty compelling data point, isn’t it?

1Homicide isn’t included, but the homicide rate in schools is so low that it doesn’t affect these figures noticeably.

View original article:  

Can You Guess When Violent Crime in Our Schools Peaked?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Can You Guess When Violent Crime in Our Schools Peaked?

No, Staying in Iraq Wouldn’t Have Changed Anything

Mother Jones

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

Iraq is close to being overthrown by a small Sunni insurgent force:

Sunni militants who overran the northern Iraqi city of Mosul as government forces crumbled in disarray extended their reach in a lightning advance on Wednesday, pressing south toward Baghdad….By late Wednesday there were unconfirmed reports that the Sunni militants, many aligned with the radical Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, were battling loyalist forces at the northern entrance to the city of Samarra, about 70 miles north of Baghdad.

So how did this happen?

Iraqi officials told the Guardian that two divisions of Iraqi soldiers — roughly 30,000 men — simply turned and ran in the face of the assault by an insurgent force of just 800 fighters. Isis extremists roamed freely on Wednesday through the streets of Mosul, openly surprised at the ease with which they took Iraq’s second largest city after three days of sporadic fighting.

Senior government officials in Baghdad were equally shocked, accusing the army of betrayal and claiming the sacking of the city was a strategic disaster that would imperil Iraq’s borders.

The developments seriously undermine US claims to have established a unified and competent military after more than a decade of training. The US invasion and occupation cost Washington close to a trillion dollars and the lives of more than 4,500 of its soldiers. It is also thought to have killed at least 100,000 Iraqis.

This is one of those Rorschach developments, where all of us are going to claim vindication for our previously-held points of view. The hawks will claim this is all the fault of President Obama, who was unable to negotiate a continuing presence of US troops after our withdrawal three years ago. Critics of the war will claim that this shows Iraq was never stable enough to defend regardless of the size of the residual American presence.

And sure enough, I’m going to play to type. I find it fantastical that anyone could read about what’s happening and continue to believe that a small US presence in Iraq could ever have been more than a Band-Aid. I mean, just read the report. Two divisions of Iraqi soldiers turned tail in the face of 800 insurgents. That’s what we got after a decade of American training. How can you possibly believe that another few years would have made more than a paper-thin difference? Like it or not, the plain fact is that Iraq is too fundamentally unstable to be rebuilt by American military force. We could put fingers in the dikes, but not much more.

Max Boot, of course, believes just the opposite, and I might as well just quote myself from a few weeks ago on that score:

I’m endlessly flummoxed by the attitude of guys like Boot. After ten years—ten years!—of postwar “peacekeeping” in Iraq, does he still seriously think that keeping a few thousand American advisors in Baghdad for yet another few years would have made a serious difference there? In Kosovo there was a peace to keep. It was fragile, sure, but it was there. In Iraq it wasn’t. The ethnic fault lines hadn’t changed a whit, and American influence over Nouri al-Maliki had shrunk to virtually nothing. We had spent a decade trying to change the fundamentals of Iraqi politics and we couldn’t do it. An endless succession of counterterrorism initiatives didn’t do it; hundreds of billions of dollars in civil aid didn’t do it; and despite some mythologizing to the contrary, the surge didn’t do it either. The truth is that we couldn’t even make a dent. What sort of grand delusion would persuade anyone that yet another decade might do the trick?

If we committed US troops to every major trouble spot in the Mideast, we’d have troops in Libya, Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Lots of troops. The hawks won’t admit this outright, but that’s what their rhetoric implies. They simply refuse to believe the obvious: that America doesn’t have that much leverage over what’s happening in the region. Small commitments of trainers and arms won’t make more than a speck of difference. Big commitments are unsustainable. And the US military still doesn’t know how to successfully fight a counterinsurgency. (That’s no knock on the Pentagon, really. No one else knows how to fight a counterinsurgency either.)

This is painfully hard for Americans to accept, but sometimes you can’t just send in the Marines. Iraq may not have been Vietnam 2.0, but there was certainly one similarity: military success against an insurgent force has a chance of succeeding only if we’re partnered with a stable, competent, popular, legitimate national government. We didn’t have that in Vietnam, and that made victory impossible. We don’t have it anywhere in the Mideast either. For better or worse, the opposing sides there are going to have to fight things out on their own. This isn’t cynicism or fatalism. It’s just reality.

Visit site: 

No, Staying in Iraq Wouldn’t Have Changed Anything

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on No, Staying in Iraq Wouldn’t Have Changed Anything

Animal Planet’s Turtleman Returns to Air Despite Damning Federal Investigation

Mother Jones

Earlier this year, Mother Jones reported on malnourished raccoons, caged coyotes, and bats left for dead behind the scenes of Animal Planet’s hit show Call of the Wildman. During a seven-month investigation, we discovered that the show’s producers routinely sourced trapped wildlife to perform roles in heavily scripted “rescue” scenes.

Now, federal authorities have confirmed cases of animal mistreatment in the show. In a 60-page internal dossier, one investigator says animals used on set likely suffered “deprivation and distress” that “threatened their health and well-being.”

The documents from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)—released for the first time to Mother Jones—reveal investigators criticizing the show’s producers for supplying “contradictory and incomplete” statements to authorities, and calling for a “more exhaustive and detailed” investigation than the preliminary “fact finding” the department has been engaged in since Mother Jones first broke the story.

Our complete coverage of animal mistreatment behind the scenes at Animal Planet


Drugs, Death, Neglect: Behind the Scenes at Animal Planet


Animal Planet Star Was Warned He Was Breaking the Law


How a Coyote Suffered Behind the Scenes at Animal Planet


Viewers are Furious With Animal Planet for Mistreating Animals on “Reality TV”


Animal Planet’s “Call of the Wildman” Abruptly Canceled in Canada

Inspectors also fault the show’s star, Ernie Brown Jr., known as Turtleman, for traumatizing a protected species of zebra by tackling the animal to the ground by its neck, all with the cameras rolling. The zebra’s owner, a production contractor, was issued a formal citation for non-compliance with the Animal Welfare Act in March.

The complete dossier—a mix of emails, case files, and memoranda compiled over four months by one of the USDA’s law enforcement arms—contains new details that add to Mother Jones’s reporting about the show’s cavalier production practices.

In one lengthy memo, USDA animal welfare inspector Juan F. Arango writes:

Although they deny it, Sharp Entertainment acquires, holds, uses and disposes of the animals during and after the filming the show…It appears that Sharp Entertainment could not legally become licensed to use trapped or captured native wildlife without circumventing state law.

Neither Sharp nor Animal Planet responded to questions from Mother Jones. Reached by phone, Animal Planet’s vice president for communications, Patricia Kollappallil, declined to comment on the internal USDA report or refer questions. “I don’t think there’s anybody that’s equipped to speak with you, frankly,” she said. “I’m going to hang up.”

In spite of grave concerns, Call of the Wildman is back on the air

Despite the federal investigation, Animal Planet premiered a new run of the show with an episode called “Phantom Menace” last Sunday, June 8. Animal Planet Canada, one of the network’s sister channels, abruptly canceled future episodes of the show in April, saying the show had stopped “resonating with Canadian audiences.”

The show returns to US airwaves amid concerns by state officials in Kentucky that Turtleman might be planning to film new episodes without holding a proper wildlife permit to catch animals himself—the defining part of Turtleman’s on-camera performance. As of Monday this week, officials with the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife confirmed that Ernie Brown Jr. does not possess a current Nuisance Wildlife Control Officer (NWCO) license, a permit he has previously held and that enables him to catch and handle wildlife.

“They shouldn’t be doing anything in Kentucky,” says Mark Marraccini, a spokesperson for the department, referring to filming.

The show’s producers have not contacted the department, which overseas the licenses, to notify officials of their intentions, Marraccini says. But multiple sources have told Mother Jones the show is “in production.”

An official citation against the owner of a zebra

In the Texas-based episode of the show called “Lone Stars and Stripes”, Turtleman chases a Grévy’s zebra—an animal protected under the Endangered Species Act—before cornering it and tackling it to the ground. Jason Clay, owner of the zebra and an animal park called Franklin Drive-Thru Safari, told Mother Jones that the animal was treated properly by the crew. But USDA’s inspection report confirms that by allowing Brown to tackle the animal, Clay did not comply with the part of the Animal Welfare Act that prohibits handling animals in a manner that could cause “trauma, behavioral stress, physical harm or unnecessary discomfort.” Clay could not be reached for comment on the citation, and did not return a message left at the Franklin Drive-Thru Safari.

Sick baby raccoons left in the care of production staffers

The USDA documents also reveal new details of the saga that eventually led to the death of one of the raccoons used for a 2012 episode involving the staged “rescue” of a family of raccoons. The investigator found that the vet who received the baby raccoons as part of the episode’s rescue scene immediately diagnosed the babies with dehydration, contradicting Sharp Entertainment’s earlier statements to Mother Jones that the baby raccoons were transferred to the vet in question in a good condition, and “by all accounts were healthy.”

Arango concludes in his investigation notes that show’s producers likely exposed raccoons in its care to unnecessary harm through mistreatment:

… based on the age and medical history of the raccoon kits used on the show, and what appeared to be inappropriate handling, it is likely that these animals experienced unnecessary deprivation and distress, accompanied by a lack of adequate veterinary care, which threatened their health and well being.

Arango also found that that “the raccoons were acquired by Sharp on April 5, at least 7 days before they were released or transferred on April 12.” This would place the handling of the raccoons well outside the maximum 48 hours allowed under Kentucky law.

Disappointment greets the show’s return to Animal Planet

Animal welfare organizations are upset about the return of the show to Animal Planet on Sunday, and have renewed calls for its cancelation.

“The Humane Society of the United States is disappointed that the network has decided to renew Call of the Wildman in the face of allegations that the animals were taken from the wild, became sick, and endured inappropriate confinement on previous shows,” said Nicole Paquette, a vice president for the organization. “We urge the network to take immediate action and discontinue this program. The only way to ensure animals are not harmed is to not use them.” Carter Dillard, from the Animal Legal Defens4e Fund praised the USDA’s investigative work, saying that it shows “significant violations and pattern in practice across multiple licensees.”

Elsewhere, wildlife officials with the state of Texas and the city of Houston both have separate, ongoing formal investigations into Call of the Wildman.

Meanwhile, fans of Animal Planet’s brand of reality TV enjoyed a double-dose of Turtleman on Sunday. Before Call of the Wildman aired last Sunday, Turtleman and his sidekick Neal made cameo appearances in the season premiere of Finding Bigfoot, a show that follows researchers who collect evidence for the existence of the mysterious Sasquatch.

Link: 

Animal Planet’s Turtleman Returns to Air Despite Damning Federal Investigation

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Animal Planet’s Turtleman Returns to Air Despite Damning Federal Investigation

Eric Cantor Loses Primary to Tea Party Challenger

Mother Jones

Holy cow. Eric Cantor has lost his primary race to tea party challenger David Brat.

So: does this mean that the tea party is alive and well? Or does it mean that the tea party has simply taken over the Republican Party and is no longer really a separate force? Regular readers know I vote for the latter. As I said a few weeks ago, “There may still be establishment types and Ted Cruz types in the GOP, but the Republican Party as a whole has adopted the tea party line lock, stock, and extremely smoking barrel. It’s been as total a victory as you’re ever likely to see in the real world.”

I think tonight is further evidence of this. Brat wasn’t an insurgent challenger so much as he was simply a mainstream Republican positioned a little bit to Cantor’s right. That’s where the mainstream of American conservatism is these days.

See the article here – 

Eric Cantor Loses Primary to Tea Party Challenger

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Eric Cantor Loses Primary to Tea Party Challenger

Chart of the Day: Democrats Have a Big Headwind to Overcome In Midterm Elections

Mother Jones

This is nothing new to regular readers of the blog, but the chart below from the Washington Post very nicely illustrates the Democratic Party’s midterm woes in a nutshell. In every demographic group that tends to support Republicans, more than 60 percent are highly likely to vote. Conversely, in every demographic group that tends to support Democrats, fewer than 50 percent are highly likely to vote. That’s a very tough headwind to overcome. Just imagine what liberals could accomplish if they actually bothered to go to the polls.

Visit site – 

Chart of the Day: Democrats Have a Big Headwind to Overcome In Midterm Elections

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chart of the Day: Democrats Have a Big Headwind to Overcome In Midterm Elections