Tag Archives: society

Arnold Schwarzenegger is here to terminate your hamburger addiction

Conan the Vegetarian

Arnold Schwarzenegger is here to terminate your hamburger addiction

By on Jun 28, 2016Share

A sweaty Arnold Schwarzenegger wanders across a barren wasteland before turning to the camera and jawing out the line, “Less meat, less heat… more life.”

This is a scene in the latest James Cameron flick, a public service announcement for the advocacy group WildAid and the Chinese Nutrition Society, aimed at linking meat eating to climate change. It’s meant to sway people to follow the country’s new dietary guidelines and eat less meat. So far there’s just a “behind the scenes” teaser, and it’s predictably over the top. Animal agriculture isn’t as big a producer of greenhouse gases as Cameron claims. He says it’s the second biggest, but you have to include all farming (plants plus animals) and forest clearance to make ag the second biggest emitter.

Cameron and Schwarzenegger are basically claiming that meat will destroy the world. It would be more accurate to say that, while meat-eating is carbon intensive, animal agriculture is also a key step in making a better world for many poor farmers and underfed kids. But who goes to a Cameron or Schwarzenegger film for nuance? If the flexing Governator can help convince affluent Chinese and rich people around the world that they don’t need meat to be strong, so much the better.

Find this article interesting?

Donate now to support our work.

Get Grist in your inbox

Link to original: 

Arnold Schwarzenegger is here to terminate your hamburger addiction

Posted in alo, Anchor, eco-friendly, FF, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Arnold Schwarzenegger is here to terminate your hamburger addiction

5 Surprising Animals You Didn’t Realize Were Pollinators

You’ve probablyheard a lot about the important role honey bees play in pollinating flowers, fruits and vegetables. But did you know that bees aren’t the only animals that are busy transferring the pollen that makes it possible for plants to reproduce? Here are five other important creatures that make it possible for our gardens to grow, farms to thrive and Mother Nature to stay happy and healthy.

Longhorn Beetle -Beetles, the largest order of insects in the world, pollinate as they move from flower to flower, where they consume nectar, pollen and flower parts. Though not as important as flies, butterflies, and bees, they still play an important role in pollination, especially in the tropics. With that said, it’s estimated that there are 52 native plant species pollinated by beetles in North America north of Mexico. There are no crops in the U.S. known to be pollinated by beetles except for the nativepaw paw. The long-horned beetle, Cerambycidae, is one of many beetles that help flowers reproduce.

Mexican Long-nosed Bat – A bat is actually a mammal, not an insect or a rodent, and bats generally play an important role pollinating fruit trees and flowers. At sometimes almost four inches long, the Mexican Long-nosed Bat is relatively large compared with most bats found in the U.S. It can be dark gray to “sooty” brown, and itslong muzzle featuresan obvious nose “leaf” at the tip. It has a very long tongue so it can dip three inches deep into a flower to slurp up the nectar. Found in Mexico and Texas, these bats help agave or century plants stay alive.

“They are very strong, highly maneuverable fliers,” reports, Texas Parks and Wildlife, “and like hummingbirds, are able to hover in flight while they feed. A mutual relationship exists, with the bats depending on the plants for food, and the plants benefiting from the bats as pollinators.”

Crested Honeycreeper – This bird,(Palmeria dolei), lives onthe Hawaiian Island of Maui. It is different from other pollinators in that it only pollinates one plant: the one it eats to survive. It’s the `ōhi`a plant, and until recently the plant itself was threatened because it was being overrun by wild pigs. The Fish and Wildlife Service has now protected the crested honeykeeper under the Endangered Species Act, setting aside a 7,500 -acre natural reserve and fencing two thousand acres to keep the pigs out. That’s been important because while the bird once lived on 485 square miles of terrain spread out over both Mauri and Noloka’i, it now lives on only 5 percent of its former Maui territory, and no birds at all remain on Molokai. If you ever get to Maui, you could identify this bird by its series of large white feathers running down its head, just above its bill and its bright orange plumage. Orange and silver accents on the wings and legs make this a beautiful bird.

Miami Blue Butterfly – As you might imagine, this little butterfly lives in south Florida, specifically on a few of the Florida Keys. Though it pollinates flowers, its ability to continue to perform that service is threatened by its very survival. The insects habitat and range are being destroyed by development and population growth, agriculture, and climate change.

“Collection of the butterfly is also a significant threat,” reports the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. ”Impacts from increasing threats are likely to result in extinction.”

Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly – You may never have thought of flies as pollinators, but this one is. It’s found in the Delhi Sands area of the “Inland Empire” region of California, from north of Sacramento to Los Angeles. It’s the first and only fly to be listed under the Endangered Species Act. Like butterflies, honeybees and other pollinators, the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly feeds on nectar from flowers. Thisfly is important, in part, because it will protect many other species also living in the dunes, notes the Xerces Society, including not only the flowers it pollinates, butthe western meadowlark and the burrowing owl, mammals like the Los Angeles pocket mouse, butterflies and other insects, and numerous reptiles.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has pulled together this list of other pollinators if you want to appreciate how many there are!

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

Visit site: 

5 Surprising Animals You Didn’t Realize Were Pollinators

Posted in Accent, alo, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on 5 Surprising Animals You Didn’t Realize Were Pollinators

The Story of How Maine’s Governor Got His Dog Will Make You Angry

Mother Jones

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

On Tuesday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage posted a photo of the newest member of his family: a Jack Russell terrier mix named Veto—an apparent reference to the combative Republican’s record of rejecting legislation.

But for one woman, Veto’s adoption was unwelcome news. Heath Arsenault, a victim of sexual assault, told local news outlet NECN she had been hoping to adopt the animal herself as an emotional support dog. She said she was heartbroken when she learned that the shelter had bent the rules to allow the governor to adopt him before he became available to the public.

“I just saw the picture and I broke down,” Arsenault said. “He was just the right size for my apartment and he’s just really sweet.”

Unbeknownst to her, LePage had also seen the dog on the Greater Androscoggin Humane Society’s website. But unlike Arsenault, who planned to take off of work on Wednesday to ensure she was first in the adoption line, LePage dropped by the shelter a day early and snagged Veto before the general public had an opportunity to do so.

“It wasn’t about, ‘Oh, I wanted that dog and somebody else adopted it,” Arsenault, added. “It just felt like my happiness was taken away from me. Bettering my relationships—that was taken away from me.”

“No one should be given special privileges, even if they are the governor,” she told the Portland Press Herald.

The shelter has since admitted to breaking its own rules by giving LePage a chance to adopt the dog a day earlier than the public.

It remains to be seen if Veto will soon be moving to Washington, DC, as LePage is reportedly gunning for a position in the Trump administration.

Visit site: 

The Story of How Maine’s Governor Got His Dog Will Make You Angry

Posted in alternative energy, Anchor, Casio, Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, solar, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Story of How Maine’s Governor Got His Dog Will Make You Angry

Earth Week Daily Action: Register to Vote

One of the most important individual actions we can take to protect the planet is to vote. How corporations behave, how much pollution is allowed, what energy we have access to, whether we’re exposed to toxic chemicalsall of these issuesare determined by the laws and regulations that govern our society. Those laws are passedor notby the people we elect to office. If we don’t elect strong advocates for environmental protection, we won’t have them in office. It’s as simple as that.

If you’re not registered to vote, do so during Earth Week.Even if you’ve already missed a primary election in your state, sign up to vote in the general election in November. Here’s how to make it happen.

1) Figure out if you’re registered! You may already be registered but not realize it. Most states allow you to access your voter status online. The Voter Participation Center provides links to every Secretary of State office in the country. Get in touch with them to determine what your registration status is if you’re unaware.

2) Register online You should beable to register online in 31 states plus the District of Columbia. Start here to see what your state’s rules are and when the registration deadlines are. Some states allow you to register the day of voting, but many states have a deadline that’s a week or two or more in advance of the election. Online registration should only take you 2 minutes.

3) Register in person at the department of motor vehicles, state or local voter registration or election offices, and at armed services recruitment centers.

4) Register by mail. You can download a national mail voter registration form here, fill it out, print it out, sign it and mail it to the location lister for your state. The form is available in English as well as many other languages.

5) Know what documentation you need to register in your state. You mayneed to show a driver’s license or state ID card. Requirements differ from state to state so be familiar with your own state’s demands.

6) Be sure you’re eligible. To vote in a federal election in the U.S., no matter which state you live in, you must be a U.S. citizen. You must meet your state’s residency requirements, and you must be 18-years-old by the time of the general election. Some states allow 17-year-olds to vote in primaries or register if they will be 18 by the time of the generation election. Check with your secretary of state if you have any questions.

Once you register, know when and where you should vote.

Primary elections often take place in a different location than general elections. Early voting, which transpires in many states, can take place somewhere different from the general election locale. Know when the primary and general election dates are and where polling places have been set up.

At RocktheVote.com, you can both register to vote and sign up to receive timely election reminders and the address of your polling place location. If you register for a political party, the party will probably send you a sample ballot that also tells you where to vote and on what days.

To avoid long lines on election day, take advantage of early voting or vote by mail.

The political process can be very frustrating, but voting for candidates that best represent your view gives you a direct way to change the process for the better.

If you’re not yet registered to vote, register during Earth Week. If you have friends and acquaintances that aren’t registered, help them get the job done. And if you have time to volunteer, work with non-profit organizations who are committed to making sure concerned citizens register and vote. On election day, the only thing that matters is voter turn out!

Related:

5 Ways You Can Celebrate National Voter Registration Day
Moving? Don’t Forget to Update Your Voter Registration Record

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

View this article – 

Earth Week Daily Action: Register to Vote

Posted in alo, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Earth Week Daily Action: Register to Vote

Permaculture: Landscaping That Works With Nature

Permaculture is a combination of the words permanent and agriculture. It refers to a system thats designed to help create more sustainable methods of agriculture, but also healthy landscapes, ecosystems and even societies.

What is permaculture?

The term permaculture was started in the 1970s by David Holmgren and Bill Mollison who worked together on the theory at the University of Tasmania.

Bill Mollison describes permaculture as a philosophy of working with, rather than against, natureof looking at plants and animals in all their functions, rather than treating any area as a single project system.

The basic idea of permaculture is to develop an area so that it meets the needs of all its inhabitants, human or otherwise. Your choices of plants, landscape features and layout should all have a purpose and work together to create an ideal space that will continue to thrive for many years to come.

This can be much easier said than done, but permaculture provides some key principles to help with whatever project youre planning.

Permaculture Design Principles

Permaculture principles can be used in many ways. You can apply them towards creating a city food garden, restoring damaged wilderness areas, promoting greater biodiversity in backyards and anywhere else where humans can assist or enhance the earths natural systems.

1. Observe and Interact Before you start any permaculture project, you want to intimately understand the area you are dealing with. Spend some time observing the site, how it changes during the seasons, what animals might live there, which plants are growing in what areas, what seems to be working well and what may be harming the local system.

2. Catch and Store Energy Sustainable ways of collecting and storing sources of energy, such as heat and water, are vital to maintain a healthy landscape. For instance, you can create areas that will naturally catch and hold water at the bottom of slopes and valleys. This will also prevent runoff and erosion.

3. Obtain a Yield An important part of any ecosystem is to provide food for all the animals that live in it, including humans. As you design your permaculture area, make sure to include spaces to plant annual vegetables as well as perennial food plants, such as fruit trees and berry bushes.

4. Apply Self-regulation and Accept Feedback All ecological systems have their limits. Work within the natural boundaries of your space and dont plant or include more than it can handle. Also make sure to plant appropriate plants for the site. If you have a hot, rocky slope, try planting a mix of drought-tolerant groundcovers and shrubs.

5. Use and Value Renewable Resources and Services Compost is an obvious example of this principle. You can plant whats called a cover crop in order to create more organic matter. These are plants that are only grown to be cut down and used as compost. Fast-growing plants, such as peas or buckwheat, make good cover crops.

6. Produce No Waste Any sustainable system contains no waste. This may not always be practical in the modern world, but you can take steps to minimize your waste. For instance, when you buy quality tools, they will last much longer than cheaper ones that you would have to throw out more often.

7. Design from Patterns to Details What patterns does your landscape have? Is there a sunny location that would make a good vegetable plot? Or a hard-to-access corner where you could plant a group of native, low-maintenance shrubs? Keep the larger picture in mind before getting into a detailed plan.

8. Integrate Rather than Segregate See if anything can serve more than one function on your site. If you have an area with too much sun exposure, planting a fruit tree will have the double function of providing shade and food.

9. Use Small and Slow Solutions Systems that operate on a smaller scale will naturally use less energy. Growing and transporting vegetables from thousands of miles away from you uses a lot more energy than growing those vegetables in your backyard or buying locally-grown veggies.

10. Use and Value Diversity Landscapes that include a variety of plants and features will create a richer and more sustainable environment. For instance, groups of native shrubs or perennial herbs next to vegetable-growing areas will attract pollinators and provide protection.

11. Use Edges and Value the Marginal There is often more activity and diversity on the edges of an ecosystem, such as a river. Fish and wildlife will spend most of their time along riverbanks where there is more cover, slower water and opportunity for hunting than the middle of the river. This can be applied to your landscape as well by including features like wandering pathways to provide lots of edges for the beds or ponds for greater diversity.

12. Creatively Use and Respond to Change This principle has particular importance as advancing climate change and human development continue to affect our environment. An inspiring example of what can be done to creatively respond to change is in Chinas Loess Plateau.

The Loess Plateau is an area about the size of the state of Texas that was extremely degraded by human use and had essentially become a desert. In 1994, the Chinese government started a massive rehabilitation project of the region. Environmental engineers organized local communities to help make terraces, replant native vegetation, and create areas for agricultural crops.

John D. Liu, director of the Environmental Education Media Project, filmed some amazing before and after shots of what the Loess Plateau project achieved. Its also a great example of what can be done by applying permacultures principles to work with, rather than against, nature.

Check out a short clip from John D. Lius film here:

Sources:
Permaculture: Principles & Pathways Beyond Sustainability, by David Holmgren

Related
4 Wild Recipes to Celebrate Spring
4 Drought-Friendly Medicinal Herbs for Your Garden
Veganic Gardening: Heres Why its the Future!

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

Read More: 

Permaculture: Landscaping That Works With Nature

Posted in alo, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Permaculture: Landscaping That Works With Nature

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

Mother Jones

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

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

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

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

Kendrick Brinson

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

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

Why helium? Why the note?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then Brittany Maynard happened.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kendrick Brinson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kendrick Brinson

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

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

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

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

Nor would I.

See original article:  

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

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

Pope Challenges Joint Congress to Work for the "Common Good"

Mother Jones

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

On Thursday, Pope Francis delivered his much anticipated speech before a joint Congress. In his remarks, which marks the first time the leader of the Catholic Church has spoken before a U.S. Congress, Francis urged lawmakers to focus on the “common good” of human society, specifically to protect vulnerable members of society and the environment.

“You are called to defend and preserve the dignity of your fellow citizens in the tireless and demanding pursuit of the common good, for this is the chief aim of all politics,” Francis said. “A political society endures when it seeks, as a vocation, to satisfy common needs by stimulating the growth of all its members, especially those in situations of greater vulnerability or risk.”

Francis also directly addressed the struggles of immigrants crossing the border and the current refugees crisis in Europe.

“We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation,” he said.

“Let us remember the Golden Rule: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.'”

The Golden Rule was a theme he continued to invoke in order to underscore his positions on income inequality, abortion, and capitol punishment.

For weeks leading up to the historic speech, Francis’ address has been a point of contention for some Republicans who view his outspoken messages on combating climate change and income inequality to conflict with the party’s stance on these issues. Last week, one Catholic congressman even announced he would be boycotting the speech altogether.

Read his speech in full here.

View original post here:

Pope Challenges Joint Congress to Work for the "Common Good"

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Pope Challenges Joint Congress to Work for the "Common Good"

Music Review: "Sign Spinners" by Natural Information Society and Bitchin Bajas

Mother Jones

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

TRACK 4

“Sign Spinners”

From Natural Information Society and Bitchin Bajas’ Autoimaginary

DRAG CITY

Liner notes: Spectral keyboards, hypnotic bass lines, and lighter-than-air percussion make for a spooky-fun instrumental.

Behind the music: Joshua Abrams launched Natural Information Society to showcase the guimbri, an African lute. Cooper Crain started Bitchin Bajas as a low-key alternative to his techno band Cave.

Check it out if you like: The Doors’ “Riders on the Storm” (minus Jim Morrison).

Read More: 

Music Review: "Sign Spinners" by Natural Information Society and Bitchin Bajas

Posted in Abrams, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Music Review: "Sign Spinners" by Natural Information Society and Bitchin Bajas

We’ll All Eat Less Meat Soon—Like It or Not

Mother Jones

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

The great bulk of American beef comes from cows that have been fattened in confined yards with thousands of of their peers, munching a diet of corn, soybeans, and chemical additives. Should the feedlot model, innovated in the United States in the middle of the 20th century, continue its global spread—or is it better to raise cows on pasture, eating grass?

The question is critical, because global demand for animal flesh is on the rise, driven by growing appetites for meat in developing countries, where per capita meat consumption stands at about a third of developed-world levels.

In a much-shared interview on the website of the Breakthrough Institute, Washington State University researcher Judith Capper informs us that the US status quo is the way forward. “If we switched to all grass-fed beef in the United States, it would require an additional 64.6 million cows, 131 million acres more land, and 135 million more tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions,” she said. “We’d have the same amount of beef, but with a huge environmental cost.”

I agree with Capper that it would be a disaster to empty the feedlots and put all of the hungry cows out to pasture—that, at current levels of beef production, finding enough grass to feed every cow that now relies on copious supplies of corn would likely prove impossible.

But there’s a deeper question that Capper doesn’t look at: Is the feedlot system itself sustainable? That is, can we keep stuffing animals—not just cows but also chickens and pigs—into confinements and feeding them gargantuan amounts of corn and soybeans? And can other countries mimic that path, as China is currently?

The answer, plainly, is no, according to the eminent ecologist Vaclav Smil in a 2014 paper. Smil notes that global meat production has risen from less than 55 million tons in 1950 to more than 300 million tons in 2010—a nearly six-fold increase in 60 years. “But this has been a rather costly achievement because mass-scale meat production is one of the most environmentally burdensome activities,” he writes, and then proceeds to list off the problems: it requires a large-scale shift from diversified farmland and rainforests to “monocultures of animal feed,” which triggered massive soil erosion, carbon emissions, and coastal “dead zones” fed by fertilizer runoff. Also, concentrating animals tightly together produces “huge volumes of waste,” more than can be recycled into nearby farmland, creating noxious air and water pollution. Moreover, it’s “inherently inefficient” to feed edible grains to farm animals, when we could just eat the grain, Smil adds.

This ruinous system would have to be scaled up to if present trends in global meat demand continue, Smil writes—reaching 412 million tons of meat in 2030, 500 million tons in 2050, and 577 million tons in 2080, according to projections from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization. Such a carnivorous future is “possible but it is neither rational nor sustainable”—it will ultimately destroy the ecosystems on which it relies.

Smil is no anti-meat crusader. He acknowledges that “human evolution has been closely linked in many fundamental ways to the killing of animals and eating their meat.” But the rise of the feedlot has provided much more meat than is necessary nutritionally—Americans consume on average about 209 pounds of meat per year, while a “wealth of evidence confirms” that bit less than 100 pounds is “compatible with good health and high longevity.”

He calculates that such a level could be achieved globally, without the ecosystem destruction built into the status quo meat production model. Rather than gobble up stuff we could eat like corn and soybeans, farm animals should be fed solely crop residues and food waste. And rather than be crammed into concentrated feedlots, they should be kept on pasture in rotation with food crops. Managing meet production that way, he calculates, would generate more 200 million tons of meat per year—about enough, he calculates, to provide the globe with sufficient meat for optimal health.

Of course, massive challenges stand between Smil’s vision and reality. For one, it would require people in industrialized countries like the United States to cut their meat consumption by half or more, even as consumption in Asia and Africa rises to roughly equal levels. Then, of course, there are the massive globe-spanning meat companies like US-owned Tyson, Brazil-owned JBS, and China’s Smithfield that have a huge stake in defending the status quo.

But ramping up the current system to provide the entire globe with US levels carnivory is hard to fathom, too. If it happens, “there is no realistic possibility of limiting the combustion of fossil fuels and moderating the rate of global climate change,” Smil writes. In other words, like it or not, it’s probably time to get used to eating less meat—pushed by the climate crisis, industrialized societies may have little choice but to ramp down meat production along lines suggested by Smil.

Meanwhile, US meat consumption, long among the very highest in the world, is waning, if slowly. The total annual slaughter peaked at 9.5 billion animals in 2009, and dropped to 9.1 billion by 2013. Interestingly, Paul Shapiro, vice president of farm-animal protection of the the Humane Society of the United States, told me that that the decrease reflects meat eaters’ cutting back, not any turn to abstention—the percentage of vegetarians and vegans among the population has “remained relatively stable” in recent years, he said. (See my colleague Gabrielle Canon’s list of the most common ways in which meat eaters justify their diet here.)

If we can continue this trend, the feedlot, which looks hyper-efficient at mass-producing meat only if you ignore a host of environmental liabilities, may yet prove to be a passing fad.

Link to article:  

We’ll All Eat Less Meat Soon—Like It or Not

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, global climate change, LAI, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on We’ll All Eat Less Meat Soon—Like It or Not

Yes, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker Are Different Kinds of Conservatives

Mother Jones

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

Jeb Bush may project a warmer, fuzzier, less hardnosed conservatism than Scott Walker, but is there really much difference between them? Greg Sargent isn’t so sure:

Here’s what I’ll be watching: How will this basic underlying difference, if it is real, manifest itself in actual policy terms? On immigration…both support eventual legalization only after the border is secured. Will their very real tonal difference show up in real policy differences?

On inequality, Walker may employ harsher rhetoric about the safety net than Bush does, but the evidence suggests that both are animated by the underlying worldview that one of the primary problems in American life is that we have too much government-engineered downward redistribution of wealth….Will Walker and Bush differentiate themselves from one another in economic policy terms in the least?

Ed Kilgore agrees:

The important thing is not assuming Bush and Walker represent anything new or different from each other just because they offer different theories of electability and different ways of talking to swing and base voters. Much of what has characterized all the recent intra-party “fights” within the GOP has reflected arguments over strategy and tactics rather than ideology and goals. I’d say there is a rebuttable presumption that will continue into the 2016 presidential contest.

You’d think that the way to get a grip on this question would be to look at the 2000 election. Jeb’s brother, George W. Bush, ran as a “compassionate conservative,” and during the campaign he even made good on that. Remember his criticism of a Republican proposal regarding the EITC: “I don’t think they ought to be balancing their budget on the backs of the poor”? Compassionate!

So how did that work out? Well, that’s the funny thing: it’s hard to say. Liberals tend to see Bush as a hardline conservative, but that’s mainly because of the Iraq War and Karl Rove’s hardball electoral tactics, which drove us crazy. Conservatives, by contrast, don’t believe he was really all that conservative at all. And I think they have a point. In fact, I made that case myself way back in 2006 in a review of Bruce Bartlett’s Imposter:

Bush may be a Republican—boy howdy, is he a Republican—but he’s not the fire-breathing ideologue of liberal legend.

Don’t believe it? Consider Bartlett’s review of Bush’s major domestic legislative accomplishments. He teamed up with Ted Kennedy to pass the No Child Left Behind Act, which increased education spending by over $20 billion and legislated a massive new federal intrusion into local schools. He co-opted Joe Lieberman’s proposal to create a gigantic new federal bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security. He has mostly abandoned free trade in favor of a hodgepodge of interest-group-pleasing tariffs. And after initially opposing it, Bush signed the Sarbanes-Oxley bill with almost pathetic eagerness in the wake of the Enron debacle, putting in place a phonebook-sized stack of new business regulations.

Want more? He signed the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill, a bête noir of conservatives for years. His Medicare prescription-drug bill was the biggest new entitlement program since the Great Society. He initially put a hold on a wide range of last-minute executive orders from the Clinton administration, but after a few months of “study” allowed nearly all of them to stand. And he has increased domestic discretionary spending at a higher rate than any president since LBJ.

Obviously there’s more to Bush’s record than this—tax cuts, judicial appointments, the Iraq War, etc.—and he certainly counts as a conservative when you look at his entire tenure in office. The question is whether there’s a difference between his brand of conservatism and, say, Scott Walker’s or Ted Cruz’s. I’d say there is, and that there’s probably also a difference between Jeb Bush’s brand of conservatism and the harder-line folks represented by Walker, Cruz, Santorum, and others. Tonal shifts and tactical choices often turn into real differences in who gets appointed to various cabinet positions and which priorities a new president will set. Jeb Bush is obviously no liberal. But would he govern differently than Scott Walker? My guess is that he would.

Source:  

Yes, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker Are Different Kinds of Conservatives

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Yes, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker Are Different Kinds of Conservatives