Tag Archives: Real

Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

By on Jul 19, 2016Share

Rumor has it that Hillary Clinton may pick Tom Vilsack, President Obama’s Secretary of Agriculture, as her veep. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia and other names come up more frequently, but Vilsack has a good shot according to Politico reporters Gabriel Debenetti and Helena Bottemiller Evich.

What to say about Vilsack? As Vanity Fair put it: “Vilsack is boring, as even his staunchest defenders will admit.”

Vilsack spins his dullness as a virtue. “I’m a workhorse, not a show horse,” he told Politico.

The former governor of Iowa is the longest serving member of Obama’s cabinet. People seem to like him on both sides of the aisle. His record is squeaky clean, except for one real scandal. In 2010, he fired a USDA employee and all around admirable person, Shirley Sherrod, after Breitbart News made allegations about her that turned out to be false. He apologized a couple of days later and said he’d made a mistake.

Vilsack has pushed programs to fight poverty and worked closely with Michelle Obama on school lunch standards. He’s also overseen a big increase in funding for local and organic farm programs — too much according to some row-crop farmers, and not enough according to some activists. He’s a reformer, working within the system rather than tearing it down, much like a certain presidential candidate.

Election Guide ★ 2016Making America Green AgainOur experts weigh in on the real issues at stake in this electionGet Grist in your inbox

Read original article:

Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Safer, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton might pick whatshisname — that ag guy — for Veep

Supreme Court: Texas Law Plainly Provided No Bona Fide Health Benefits

Mother Jones

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

Today’s abortion decision is good news for supporters of reproductive rights, but it didn’t provide much guidance about what it means for a law to place an “undue burden” on women seeking abortions. The majority opinion ruled that Texas’s law failed the test laid out in Casey, which balances the burden a law places on women seeking abortions with the benefit the law confers. The problem is that HB2 so plainly provided no benefit that it wasn’t really a hard call. Here is Justice Breyer on the requirement that doctors performing abortions have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital:

When directly asked at oral argument whether Texas knew of a single instance in which the new requirement would have helped even one woman obtain better treatment, Texas admitted that there was no evidence in the record of such a case.

….That brief describes the undisputed general fact that “hospitals often condition admitting privileges on reaching a certain number of admissions per year.”…The president of Nova Health Systems…pointed out that it would be difficult for doctors regularly performing abortions at the El Paso clinic to obtain admitting privileges at nearby hospitals because “during the past 10 years, over 17,000 abortion procedures were performed at the El Paso clinic and not a single one of those patients had to be transferred to a hospital for emergency treatment, much less admitted to the hospital.” In a word, doctors would be unable to maintain admitting privileges or obtain those privileges for the future, because the fact that abortions are so safe meant that providers were unlikely to have any patients to admit.

And here he is on the requirement that abortion providers meet the requirements for surgical centers:

The record makes clear that the surgical-center requirement provides no benefit when complications arise in the context of an abortion produced through medication. That is because, in such a case, complications would almost always arise only after the patient has left the facility.

Nationwide, childbirth is 14 times more likely than abortion to result in death, but Texas law allows a midwife to oversee childbirth in the patient’s own home. Colonoscopy, a procedure that typically takes place outside a hospital (or surgical center) setting, has a mortality rate 10 times higher than an abortion.

The majority opinion relied primarily on reams of real-world evidence that made it crystal clear that HB2 provided no bona fide safety benefits. Unfortunately, that means that no real discussion of “undue burden” was required, so it’s not clear what effect this case will have as precedent. We’ll have to wait and see what lower courts do with it and how the anti-abortion forces rewrite their laws in order to get another crack at a different ruling.

Original article: 

Supreme Court: Texas Law Plainly Provided No Bona Fide Health Benefits

Posted in Brita, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Supreme Court: Texas Law Plainly Provided No Bona Fide Health Benefits

Don’t believe the slander: Americans are eating less crap.

Don’t believe the slander: Americans are eating less crap.

By on Jun 23, 2016Share

Americans are eating less of our unofficial national dish — deep-fried sugar-frosted rot gut. Instead, we’re eating more fruits, nuts, and whole grains, according to a new study published this week in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

Diets are, on average, getting better. But the real strength of this study is that it asked how specific groups were doing and found major racial and economic disparities. The diets of both the rich and the poor improved in the decade after 2000, though the diets of rich Americans improved more. The percentage of white adults with what the study defined as a poor diet decreased. But the percentage of black and Mexican-American adults with poor diets didn’t change. Like many health problems, the causes of poor diets are rooted in economic and racial inequity.

One small caveat: This study relied on people reporting what they ate in the past 24 hours, a method which is sometimes better at gathering data on what people know they should have eaten, rather than on what they actually eat.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Read More:  

Don’t believe the slander: Americans are eating less crap.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Brita, FF, GE, ONA, solar, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Don’t believe the slander: Americans are eating less crap.

Clinton Launches Website to Attack Trump’s Business Record

Mother Jones

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

The Hillary Clinton campaign has launched a new website dedicated to attacking Donald Trump on the area he claims as his greatest selling point: his business history.

The website, Art of the Steal, takes direct aim at Trump’s business misfires, using the oft-maligned Trump Steaks and the failure of his Atlantic City casinos as examples of the real estate magnate’s flawed business sense.

“Sometimes he was bad at business in that he made a lot of money while hurting a lot of people,” the website says. “But most of the time, he was just bad at it.”

“He’s Mitt Romney but bad at his job,” the website adds.

The website’s launch is part of a series of economically focused attacks on Trump. On Tuesday, Clinton spoke about Trump’s potential impact on the economy during an event in Ohio, calling a Trump presidency “devastating for families and bad for the economy.” Her campaign is also rolling out a new web video assailing the businessman’s record:

Clinton’s offensive comes just one day after a new analysis of Trump’s economic proposals was released by Moody’s Analytics. The report found that in the absence of congressional intervention, Trump’s plans to shift away from globalization would “diminish the nation’s growth prospects,” and his economic plans would “result in larger federal government deficits and a heavier debt load” that would translate into “a weaker U.S. economy, with fewer jobs and higher unemployment.”

Clinton also gave a speech on Tuesday attacking Trump’s economic proposals and business record. “He’s written a lot of books about his business,” she said. “They all seem to end at chapter 11.”

More here: 

Clinton Launches Website to Attack Trump’s Business Record

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Clinton Launches Website to Attack Trump’s Business Record

The weather is throwing thunderstorm tantrums

Jerkstorm alert

The weather is throwing thunderstorm tantrums

By on Jun 21, 2016 5:05 amShare

Good news for thunderstorms that get a kick out of ganging up, flooding a few billion dollars worth of real estate, and tearing roofs off buildings: the climate is working in your favor.

Hoo boy, is it ever. Burning wood, coal, and oil generate fine aerosol particles that create perfect conditions for thunderstorm ragers, according to a new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Aerosol particles do this by delaying rainfall from anything from a few hours to a full day, causing clouds to grow bigger and bigger until the resulting storm is a puffed-up, roided-out monster.

Scientists have suspected the connection between aerosols and crazy weather for a while. Aerosol particles from Chinese factories, for example, have been implicated in the frat party storms of the Pacific Northwest. What makes this study different is its scale. The research team looked at satellite data from 2,430 different cloud systems gathered from geostationary satellites that track the same spot on the Earth’s surface all day, instead of just flying over the planet a couple of times the way other weather satellites do.

Think of these thunderstorms as tantrums that the weather is going to throw with more and more intensity until we get the hang of making energy without throwing fine particulate matter into the atmosphere. Even then storms won’t go away entirely, but at least they’ll be tearing up the town a lot less often.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original article: 

The weather is throwing thunderstorm tantrums

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, solar, solar power, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The weather is throwing thunderstorm tantrums

Campaign Finance Documents Show Donald Trump’s Campaign Is in Disarray

Mother Jones

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

Maybe Corey Lewandowski got out at the right time. While reporters scrambled on Monday to figure out why Trump let his campaign manager go, the campaign was preparing to release its latest campaign finance filing that looks, at least at first glance, to be devastating. It doesn’t look much better on second glance.

The first glance: Hillary Clinton’s campaign has more than 35 times the cash Trump’s does.

Here’s the second glance: Ted Cruz dropped out of the GOP primary on May 3, meaning that for the month of May, Trump was all but assured the nomination and the campaign should have been in prime fundraising mode. But it wasn’t. Even taking into account Trump’s long-stated claims that he had no interest in raising money from others (something he has reversed himself on)—filings the campaign made with the Federal Election Commission late Monday evening show that Trump simply couldn’t get any fundraising momentum going. He raised a grand total of $5.6 million from May 1 to May 31, $2.2 million of which was in the form of loans from Trump personally.

That’s very bad. It means Trump raised just $3.4 million from people other than himself. His vanquished opponent Cruz, whose campaign had melted away, raised $2.6 million over the same time period.

Trump’s fundraising has always been anemic and the campaign has always relied heavily on loans from the real estate magnate, but barely beating his defeated opponents isn’t a good look. Hillary Clinton’s campaign raised $26.3 million in May. It was only her third best fundraising month. But unlike the other top months, which came at the height of the primary against Bernie Sanders, Clinton wasn’t spending money as fast (or faster) than she could raise it. Clinton managed to bank the bulk of her May fundraising, which is how she now has $42.4 million on hand.

Trump, who spent more than he raised, has $1.2 million in cash on hand. True, Trump has always had very little cash on hand at the end of a reporting period. But this was because he was writing the checks and didn’t need to keep cash on hand. But now that Trump insists he won’t be self-financing, those low numbers are a problem. Even if Trump significantly increased his fundraising since May 31, he would have to be raising money at an almost unprecedented rate to catch up to Clinton.

It’s not just the low numbers that portend potential disaster for the GOP’s man. It’s the way he arrives at the low numbers that looks scary. There’s no real significant support from top donors—the bedrock of a strong monthly fundraising report. But the Trump campaign picked up just 133 donations that hit the maximum allowed amount of $2,700. Clinton had more donations of $2,700 on just May 17 (140) than Trump had all month, and almost 15 times as many for the entire month (1,981).

Elsewhere in Trump World things are looking just as bleak. While some of the super-PACs that have sprung up to back Trump have yet to file (and at least one major one won’t be filing any information at all until next month), the Great America PAC, which fashions itself as the only “real” Trump super-PAC, has just $501,000 in cash on hand. Compare that to the main pro-Clinton super-PAC, Priorities USA, which has nearly $52 million in cash on hand.

View original article – 

Campaign Finance Documents Show Donald Trump’s Campaign Is in Disarray

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Campaign Finance Documents Show Donald Trump’s Campaign Is in Disarray

North Korea Praises "Wise Politician" Donald Trump

Mother Jones

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

Just days after President Barack Obama said international leaders were justly “rattled” by the unlikely rise of Donald Trump, state-run media from North Korea—one of the world’s most unpredictable dictatorships—has endorsed the presumptive GOP nominee.

In an editorial on Tuesday, the country’s state-run media outlet DPRK praised the presumptive Republican nominee as a “wise” and “far-sighted” politician who would work toward unification with South Korea.

“In my personal opinion, there are many positive aspects the Trump’s ‘inflammatory policies,'” Han Yong Mook, who according to the outlet is a Chinese North Korean academic, wrote. “Trump said he will not get involved in the war between the South and the North. Isn’t this fortunate from North Koreans’ perspective?”

The editorial also called on American voters to reject “dull” Hillary Clinton. The article criticized the likely Democratic nominee for pushing sanctions against North Korea in order to limit its nuclear capabilities, similar to the strategy adopted in Iran.

In previous remarks, Trump has proposed withdrawing American troops to abandon its stations in South Korea, and he has slammed the country for being a national security freeloader by not paying to protect itself and forcing the US to foot its national security bill. The real estate magnate has also suggested replacing troops with nuclear options—comments that alarmed both South Korea and neighboring Japan.

The plan, however, has apparently found support in North Korea.

“Yes, do it now,” Han wrote. “Who knew the slogan ‘Yankee Go Home’ would come true like this? The day when the ‘Yankee Go Home’ slogan becomes real would be the day of Korean Unification.”

Read the article: 

North Korea Praises "Wise Politician" Donald Trump

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on North Korea Praises "Wise Politician" Donald Trump

Why Are So Many Millennials Still Living at Home?

Mother Jones

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

A few days ago Pew Research analyzed the latest census data and announced that we are now in record-setting territory: More adult children live at home with their parents than anytime in American history. This prompted a fresh barrage of hand-wringing about (a) the lousy economy and (b) the problems this is causing for millennials.

I’ll get to millennials and the economy in a bit, but first, here’s a chart that provides a longer-term look at young adults living at home:

That’s pretty odd, isn’t it? If the economy were the driving force behind kids moving into their parents’ basements, you’d expect to see these numbers go down during economic expansions and up during recessions. But that’s decidedly what we don’t see. The numbers went steadily up during both the Reagan and Clinton booms, with no trend change at all during the 1991 recession. Then the numbers fell from 1999 through 2005, which spans two expansions and one recession. Then they started up again, and kept going up even when the Obama expansion started to pick up some steam.

If the economy plays a role in this, it’s sure hard to see. So what’s really going on? Over at 538, Ben Casselman points us to Jed Kolko, who crunched a few numbers and concluded that it’s mainly about marriage and kids:

Alongside recent swings in the housing and job markets, there have been profound long-term demographic shifts that are related to young adults’ living arrangements….An especially important trend is that people are waiting longer today than in the past to get married and have kids — so the share of 18-34 year-olds who are married with kids has plummeted from 49% in 1970 to 36% in 1980, 32% in 1990, 27% in 2000, 22% in 2010, and just 20% in 2015. Unsurprisingly, married young adults and those with children are far less likely to live with their parents than single or childless young adults.

(Note that because Kolko is interested in marriage rates among young adults, he’s citing numbers for 18-34 year-olds. My chart above is for 25-34 year-olds.)

So what happens when you control for this, along with other demographic changes over the past few decades? Kolko: “Adjusted for demographic shifts, the share of young adults living in their parents’ home was actually lower in 2015 than in the pre-bubble years of the late 1990s. In other words, young people today are less likely to live with their parents than young people with the same demographics twenty years ago were.

Kolko wisely recommends not trying to explain everything away with demographics: some of these demographic effects can interact with each other, while the causality of others might run in the opposite direction (maybe living at home makes you less marriageable material). Still, the declining marriage trends have been steady for nearly half a century and are obviously not the result of the Great Recession. Ditto for the other long-term demographic changes.

None of this is to say that the economy has nothing to do with living arrangements. Even adjusted for demographics, Kolko’s chart still shows a small increase in adult children living at home starting around 2010. This is likely due to a triple whammy affecting millennials: (1) their incomes dropped during the Great Recession and still haven’t fully recovered, (2) college grads are saddled with more debt than previous generations, and (3) the real cost of housing has increased nearly 10 percent over the past decade. Put all this together, and the average millennial today has less disposable income but faces higher rent than previous generations. This is a real problem, and it would be surprising indeed if it literally had no effect at all on the likelihood of 20-ish millennials living at home longer than they used to.

That said, the effect appears to be fairly small. The big driver of living at home in your 20s appears to be primarily demographic. The economy plays only a small role.

Taken from:

Why Are So Many Millennials Still Living at Home?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Are So Many Millennials Still Living at Home?

Donald Trump Once Said His Wife Shouldn’t Work Because She Should Prepare Dinner

Mother Jones

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

Should you forget for any brief moment during your upcoming Memorial Day weekend that Donald Trump has a serious problem with women, here is a 1994 clip of the presidential hopeful explaining why he didn’t approve of his then wife Marla Maples joining the workforce.

“I have days where I think it’s great,” Trump said in the newly unearthed interview. “And then I have days where if I come home and—you know, I don’t want to sound too much like a chauvinist—but when I come home and dinner’s not ready, I’ll go through the roof, okay?”

The clip comes courtesy of the Daily Show‘s “Tales from the Trump Archive” series, in which host Trevor Noah brings to light such unsavory moments from the real estate magnate’s past. Also on Thursday, NBC resurfaced another vintage interview where Trump called pregnancy an “inconvenience” to businesses. Anyone sensing a pattern?

Link to original: 

Donald Trump Once Said His Wife Shouldn’t Work Because She Should Prepare Dinner

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Vintage | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Once Said His Wife Shouldn’t Work Because She Should Prepare Dinner

Trump just wants to save the birds, you guys

Trump just wants to save the birds, you guys

By on May 26, 2016Share

Donald J. Trump is for the birds.

Speaking to oil and gas interests in Bismarck, N.D., on Thursday, the presumptive Republican nominee made clear his thoughts on two energy-policy cornerstones: renewable energy and our feathered friends.

Trump expressed disdain with the Department of Justice, which “filed a lawsuit against seven North Dakota oil companies for the death of 28 birds, while the administration fast-tracked wind projects that kill more than a million birds a year.”

“Far more than a million birds,” he clarified.

DOJ did file these charges in 2011. It has also targeted wind developers under the same legislation, the Migratory Bird Treaty Act.

As for the million-bird figure, the Fish and Wildlife Service estimates the number is likely closer to 500,000. Which is a lot of birds — but for reference, oil and gas kill around the same amount, and the coal industry snuffs out close to 8 million birds annually.

The real estate developer has never been the biggest fan of wind farms:

Except when he’s talking to clean-energy advocates: “It’s an amazing thing when you think — you know, where they can, out of nowhere, out of the wind, they make energy,” he mused to an Iowa voter late last year.

The same line-straddling appeared in Trump’s remarks on solar.

“The problem with solar is it’s very expensive,” he said a month after the world reached several tipping points for competitive renewable energy.

“I know a lot about solar,” he said in a press conference earlier on Thursday. We’re still waiting to find out what he meant.

Get Grist in your inbox

Original article: 

Trump just wants to save the birds, you guys

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, solar, Uncategorized, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump just wants to save the birds, you guys