Tag Archives: top stories

The Top MoJo Longreads of 2015

Mother Jones

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

In 2015, MoJo readers proved yet again that great long-form reporting belongs online. These richly detailed reports are sparking discussions and inspiring readers to share stories in greater numbers than ever before. Many of our most popular articles published over the past year were heavily researched investigations and deeply reported narratives that originally appeared in the magazine. Here, for your holiday enjoyment, is a selection of our best-loved longreads from the past year. (And once you’re done reading through them, click here for last year’s list, here for our 2013 list, and here for our 2012 list).

What If Everything You Knew About Disciplining Kids Was Wrong?
Negative consequences just make bad behavior worse. But a new approach really works.
By Katherine Reynolds Lewis

The True Cost of Gun Violence in America
The data the NRA doesn’t want you to see.
By Mark Follman, Julia Lurie, Jaeah Lee, and James West

The War on Women Is Over—and Women Lost
While you weren’t watching, conservatives fundamentally rewrote abortion laws.
By Molly Redden

The Shockingly Simple, Surprisingly Cost-Effective Way to End Homelessness
Why aren’t more cities using it?
By Scott Carrier

The Scary New Science That Shows Milk Is Bad For You
Why does the government still push three servings a day?
By Josh Harkinson

How the Government Put Tens of Thousands of People at Risk of a Deadly Disease
If it killed politicians instead of prisoners, this illness would be public enemy No. 1.
By David Ferry

Here’s How Bernie Sanders May Be Changing Politics for Good
Inside the wild-haired socialist’s unlikely rise.
By Tim Murphy

The Terrifying Truth About Air Pollution and Dementia
Scientists now suspect that a major cause of Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s could be in the air.
By Aaron Reuben

America’s Most Notorious Coal Baron Is On Trial. Here’s the Epic Tale of His Rise and Fall.
The biggest mine disaster in 40 years occurred on Don Blankenship’s watch at Massey Energy.
By Tim Murphy

Read original article:

The Top MoJo Longreads of 2015

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Top MoJo Longreads of 2015

Here’s How to Get Rich or Die Podcasting

Mother Jones

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

Despite a successful career in public radio, Alex Blumberg says he never showed any “entrepreneurial spunk.” That changed when he left a comfortable post at NPR’s Planet Money and, together with Matt Lieber, began to court venture capitalists to help launch a podcast incubator. The resulting company, Gimlet, has attracted at least 4 million monthly listeners and $1.5 million from investors. Its portfolio of highly produced shows includes StartUp (the first season told the inside story of starting up Gimlet); Reply All, which takes on internet culture; and Mystery Show, in which host Starlee Kine solves seemingly trivial problems. Surprisingly Awesome, the newest show, sets out to make dull topics, like free throws or mold, interesting; it’s the brainchild of Adam Davidson, Blumberg’s former cohost at Planet Money, and filmmaker Adam McKay. Blumberg talked to Mother Jones about the biz.

Mother Jones: Why leave a comfortable job at Planet Money to go off on your own?

Alex Blumberg: I don’t know. Why do we do anything? laughs. I was 40-something years old. I hadn’t shown any entrepreneurial spunk up until that point. I thought that there should be a way of identifying talent and then helping that talent make shows and those shows find audiences. I kept on thinking, well, somebody should do it and waiting around and no one did.

MJ: What did Gimlet look like back when you launched StartUp with Matt Lieber?

AB: We didn’t really have an office. So we had these two business calls, I remember, where we were both walking around the streets of Manhattan on our cell phones like a block apart from each other. Every time a siren would go by, it was just awful. So we finally we paid for a place in an incubator. Two little chairs and a desk. StartUp launched and went pretty well, and that helped us raise the rest of the money.

MJ: You’ve describe Gimlet as “the HBO of podcasting.” What did you mean by that?

AB: Right now, there are lots of podcasts that are cheaper to produce, and many of them are great; I love a great “friends shooting the shit” show. But where there’s an opportunity is in the more highly produced way, where you are reporting and sifting stuff out and cutting, honing things. I come from that. I feel like those take more work and you’re polishing them a little bit longer, fussing with them a lot more. That’s sort of why I said HBO of podcasting: We’re not going to produce tons of it, but the content we produce, we’re going to try and make it stand out in some way.

MJ: Did you expect StartUp to do so well?

AB: I didn’t expect it to strike that kind of chord with the number of listeners that it did. Like, ‘Oh my God, you are describing the journey that I’ve been on making my productivity app,’ or whatever. There are tons of businesses that exist in the United States. An insane number of people who are in business for themselves. And then there are people on board feeling they’re at key early stages of companies. So I think there are a bunch of people who can sort of relate to the feelings of it, but hadn’t really heard those feelings brought out before.

Reply All: “The Man in the FBI Hat”

MJ: What do you learn about your own company’s journey by looking at Dating Ring’s journey, as you did in season two?

AB: We were able to raise money much more quickly than they were. It felt like it took forever at the time, but then talking to Dating Ring and talking to other start-ups—we were a little bit of an anomaly.

The other thing was that being old wasn’t such a bad thing. laughs. When I was 25, I felt all this pressure to succeed, and I’m keenly aware of who’s ahead of me and who was behind me—and it fucks you up! With me being in my 40s, I knew who I was.

MJ: Gimlet started at an interesting time, at this golden era of podcasting—46 million Americans listen to at least one podcast in a given month. Do you think it’s just a fad, or is it here to stay?

AB: Radio was supposed to die in 1945, when TV came along. It turns out that radio grew and grew, and it’s a bigger business today than it has ever been. People really like to listen to other people talk; sometimes listening is the only thing you can do. Audio is the only medium you can consume while you’re multitasking. Now that everybody has a smart phone and everybody’s car is going to be connected, it’s a brand new world.

MJ: What do you think people get from listening instead of reading or watching media?

AB: I think people want companionship. Radiolab is sort of like hanging out with the hosts. They’re like friends you want to have that are like teaching you stuff and they’re telling great stories.

MJ: Public radio has this reputation of having the predominantly white, male voice. How do you plan to tackle diversity at Gimlet?

AB: It’s something that I think about pretty much every day. How do we make it a non-homogenous place technically? Right now, it’s not. Podcasts should look like America. And I feel like, ideally, that’s what you’d want your company to look like. I think that’s right and makes sense from a business perspective.

MJ: How do you guys plan on doing that?

AB: You start to realize why companies in the beginning look the way they do: You’re drawing from your own personal connections when you’re starting something. You see it in small businesses all over. One ethnic group has a store franchise and then like the one that opens is a cousin. When you’re launching a business, you just really want to know somebody deeply to help in how you do it laughs. We recruit people. We’re trying to train people up. We’re reaching out to this interesting alternate world of the non-public radio podcasters who just come to podcasting because they like podcasting.

MJ: What about in terms of the content you produce at Gimlet?

AB: One of the things that I think audio is best at is creating empathy. I know that might sound a little crazy but I actually truly believe it. When you’re hearing somebody and you’re not seeing them, your brain naturally creates a version of them. Then you feel closer to them because you’ve created them. You’re not sitting back and judging them, saying they look different from me on a subconscious level. Some of the shows we’re planning in particular are going to be conversations between all kinds of different people that are a lot about trying to create empathy.

MJ: How did your newest show, Surprisingly Awesome, come about?

AB: I’d worked with Adam Davidson at Planet Money for many years and knew what an incredible talent he is. And also Adam McKay makes really funny movies, and I thought, the show they wanted to do will be in a nice sweet spot for podcasts in general. A lot of people listen to podcasts because they want to learn something and be entertained along the way, and I feel like this is perfectly in that zone.

First episode of Surprisingly Awesome

MJ: What’s a topic that the show would cover?

AB: Free throws. A free throw seems boring but then when you sort of dig into what’s going on and the history and psychology and the social anthropology around the free throw—it’s interesting.

Mystery Show: “Belt Buckle”

Link to original:

Here’s How to Get Rich or Die Podcasting

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How to Get Rich or Die Podcasting

A Food Giant Wanted to Squash Eggless Mayo. It Just Lost.

Mother Jones

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

In the great mayo wars of 2015, there is finally a winner.

For those who haven’t been following the scandal-filled sandwich spread controversy, a bit of background: It all began in 2013, when the egg-alternative food startup company Hampton Creek launched a vegan mayonnaise-like product called Just Mayo, which soon became Whole Foods’ most popular mayonnaise.

Read our past coverage of the hackers trying to make fake eggs better. Ross MacDonald

So popular was Just Mayo, in fact, that in November 2014, Unilever, parent company of market leader Hellmann’s, sued Hampton Creek for false advertising and unfair competition. The food giant argued that Just Mayo, because it contained no eggs, “damages the entire product category, which has strived for decades for a consistent definition of ‘mayonnaise’ that fits with consumer expectations.” Unilever dropped the lawsuit about a month later “as consumers heaped scorn on the company for what they viewed as a frivolous lawsuit,” the food industry news site Food Dive reported.

Nevertheless, in August of this year the FDA ruled that Hampton Creek couldn’t call its product mayonnaise. “The use of the term ‘mayo’ in the product names and the image of an egg may be misleading to consumers because it may lead them to believe that the products are the standardized food, mayonnaise,” the FDA said in a statement.

Then, in September, internal emails from the American Egg Board surfaced. They showed that the industry group had tried to stop Whole Foods from selling Just Mayo—and that Egg Board members were really worked up over Hampton Creek. From the Guardian:

More than one member of the AEB made joking threats of violence against Hampton Creek’s founder, Josh Tetrick. “Can we pool our money and put a hit on him?” asked Mike Sencer, executive vice-president of AEB member organization Hidden Villa Ranch. Mitch Kanter, executive vice-president of the AEB, jokingly offered “to contact some of my old buddies in Brooklyn to pay Mr. Tetrick a visit.”

Egg Board CEO Joanne Ivy retired early in the wake of the episode.

While all that was going on, Hampton Creek was working with the FDA on a compromise, and today, the company announced that it will be allowed to keep the name Just Mayo, as long as it makes its eggless-ness even clearer on the product label. The AP’s Candice Choi reports:

The changes include making the words ‘egg-free’ larger and adding ‘Spread & Dressing.’ An image of an egg with a pea shoot inside will also be smaller.

Now, all this hoopla over a “spread and dressing” and its picture of a pea-shoot-bearing egg might seem ridiculous, but keep in mind that this business played out against the backdrop of a devastating avian flu outbreak that hobbled the egg industry. What’s more, in April two former egg industry executives were sentenced to jail time for their connection with a 2010 salmonella outbreak that is thought to have sickened as many as 56,000 people.

All those egg woes aside, there’s another reason behind egg purveyors’ massive freak-out: At least according to writer Rowan Jacobsen, unlike most other eggless mayonnaise products, Just Mayo actually tastes good.

View the original here: 

A Food Giant Wanted to Squash Eggless Mayo. It Just Lost.

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Food Giant Wanted to Squash Eggless Mayo. It Just Lost.

Republicans Have Been Pretty Quiet About the Big Climate Deal. Is That About to Change?

Mother Jones

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

This story originally appeared in The New Republic and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

In the wake of the two-week climate conference in Paris, at which 195 countries agreed to significantly curb carbon emissions, the world has moved on to the question of how to implement such an ambitious plan. The fifth Republican presidential debate Tuesday night, however, will move in its own orbit. When Republicans have talked about climate change, it hasn’t been to propose solutions, but to raise doubt over the role humans play in cooking the planet and to dismiss the idea that we should do something about it.

Paris should come up in the debate, if only for the sake of asking Republicans how they plan on handling the international backlash to their proposal to pull out of the deal. Every one of America’s allies has worked hard to see this deal come to fruition. How does a Republican president plan on leading the world if he insists we should be the only nation to stand on the sidelines?

That question needs to be raised, because we haven’t seen a thorough treatment of the subject yet. In fact, the presidential field has so far been surprisingly quiet on the outcome of Paris. John Kasich’s campaign was the only one to put out a statement about it. “While the governor believes that climate change is real and that human activity contributes to it, he has serious concerns with an agreement that the Obama administration deliberately crafted to avoid having to submit it to the Senate for approval,” Rob Nichols, a Kasich spokesman, said. “That’s an obvious indicator that they expect it to result in significant job loss and inflict further damage to our already sluggish economy.”

Check out Climate Desk’s ultimate guide to the presidential candidates’ positions on climate change

Some read this as a good sign. Maybe Republicans aren’t as willing to jump on Paris, because they realize climate denial won’t work in their favor. One theory is that Paris foretells an inevitable recalibration of the conventional Republican approach to science denial. “I think Republicans will have to continue to fight over fossil fuels and defend that industry in a more technical way,” said John Coequyt, the Sierra Club’s international climate campaigner, according to The Guardian. “They will be less able to fight over climate change than they were before, and they will retreat in a process fight over defending the coal industry and the oil and gas industry.” President Barack Obama suggested that a Republican successor couldn’t continue to deny what every ally accepts as fact. “Your credibility and America’s ability to influence events depends on taking seriously what other countries care about,” he said in Paris. “I think the president of the United States is going to need to think this is really important.”

He certainly wants this to be true, because the next president holds Obama’s climate legacy in his or her hands. A Republican president could undo all of this administration’s hard work, and it’s possible to imagine the fragile support for an international framework coming down.

Unfortunately, it’s wildly optimistic to think Republicans will bend to international pressure, especially during primary season. Donald Trump hasn’t minded offending the rest of the world his disparaging comments about Muslims and Hispanics. Trump simply canceled his planned trip to Israel when the prime minister condemned him, and he surged in the polls this summer after Mexico’s president condemned his discriminatory remarks about immigrants. International expectations are the last of the GOP’s concerns right now, climate change included.

Even if the subject gets extra attention on Tuesday, Republicans will likely repeat the same lines we’ve heard for so long, regardless of the changing international circumstances.

“America is not a planet,” Senator Marco Rubio has said to justify repealing Obama’s power plant regulations, even though the Paris deal actually does cover most of the planet.

And you might hear something like this from Senator Ted Cruz, now polling second in Iowa: In an interview with NPR last week, Cruz insisted climate change was a result of “liberal politicians who want government power over the economy, the energy sector, and every aspect of our lives.” Pressed further to explain why he thinks almost all the nations of the world have joined in this endeavor, Cruz just changed the subject.

Cruz doesn’t shy away form outright science denial, as many of his fellow contenders have. But if he’s going to insist that global warming isn’t occurring, he should also say how he proposes to move the United States in the opposite direction from the rest of the world.

Taken from:

Republicans Have Been Pretty Quiet About the Big Climate Deal. Is That About to Change?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Have Been Pretty Quiet About the Big Climate Deal. Is That About to Change?

Here’s How Uber Is Trying to Get Out of a Huge Lawsuit

Mother Jones

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

For the past two years, car-hailing app Uber has tried several legal maneuvers to quash an ongoing class action lawsuit filed by a number of its drivers in California. They contend that they’ve been wrongly classified as contractors, instead of full employees, and that Uber has withheld some of their tips. On Friday, the $50 billion company deployed its latest tactic: An updated driver agreement began popping up on Uber apps nationwide that drivers were required to sign before being able to accept any new rides over the weekend, reports the San Francisco Chronicle. But many see this agreement as the company’s most recent attempt to knee-cap the class action lawsuit.

In 2014, Uber rewrote its driver agreements to include an arbitration clause that stripped drivers of their right to sue the company in regular court. On Wednesday, a federal judge in San Francisco threw out that agreement, making it possible for the ongoing class action to include all of the 160,000 drivers who have worked for Uber in California since 2009.

Two days later, Uber added language about arbitration to its driver agreements that could skirt that ruling, preventing new drivers from signing on to the class action lawsuit. Binding arbitration clauses require workers to resolve disputes in private, confidential sessions with paid arbitrators rather than in court. They also usually prohibit workers both from appealing the initial arbitration decision and, as is the case in Uber’s new driver agreement, participating in class actions.

“We believe this is an illegal attempt by Uber to usurp the court’s role now in overseeing the process of who is included in the class,” Shannon Liss-Riordan, the Boston-based attorney who is leading the lawsuit against Uber, told the San Francisco Chronicle. Liss-Riordan is filing an emergency motion that will be heard by Judge Chen on Thursday, asking the court to prevent Uber from enforcing this new agreement.

If drivers manage to get to the final paragraphs of the complex 21-page agreement, they’ll discover that they don’t have to sign off on the new arbitration clause at all. By emailing Uber directly with their decision to opt out of being forced to resolve their disputes with binding arbitration, they would be able to continue to drive. The new agreement also won’t affect those drivers who are already participating in the lawsuit.

The ongoing lawsuit challenges two aspects of how the $50 billion company treats workers: first, it claims that Uber has misclassified its workers as contractors, depriving them of crucial employee benefits such as vehicle maintenance expenses. It also alleges that the company has been manipulating ride prices by incorrectly assuring riders that a full tip is included in the fare when, in fact, Uber has kept a portion of those tips rather than remitting them fully to drivers. The suit asks Uber to reimburse drivers for lost tips and expenses, plus interest. If the group of plaintiffs grows by 160,000 drivers, the civil penalties requested in this suit could get very expensive for Uber.

Liss-Riordan explains that Uber is trying to thwart the class action because the alternative—lots of individual lawsuits—would be much simpler and cheaper for the company to handle. The time and money involved in hiring a lawyer would deter many drivers from ever pursuing an individual lawsuit. “And of course, Uber does not want to be sued 160,000 times,” Liss-Riordan told Mother Jones in October. “What it wants is for most of these drivers just to go away.”

Source article – 

Here’s How Uber Is Trying to Get Out of a Huge Lawsuit

Posted in Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s How Uber Is Trying to Get Out of a Huge Lawsuit

How to Talk About Consent Like a Porn Star

Mother Jones

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

For the past several years, porn star James Deen has been at the top of his industry. Known for his mainstream crossover appeal and popularity among women, Deen once told reporter Amanda Hess it was his “nonthreatening, everyday look” that gave him a leg up in the industry. (Indeed, one woman called him “the Ryan Gosling of porn” on Nightline in 2012.) Though he doesn’t identify himself this way, lady mags and news outlets alike labeled him a feminist.

Then, on November 28, porn actor and producer Stoya tweeted that Deen, her former boyfriend, had raped her. The revelation rocked the relatively small adult-film community, and sparked a Bill Cosby-like cascade of allegations—some of which involved on-set incidents. At least 13 women have shared stories so far, ranging from excessive roughness to rape; Deen has since denied the claims.

American pornography, an estimated $10 billion industry, has years of knowledge to contribute to the cultural and legislative debate over how to define sexual consent: According to sexologist Carol Queen, porn has been grappling with these questions for decades. This week, as porn’s practices have come under scrutiny following the allegations against Deen, we decided to ask adult actors, researchers, and advocates about how they handle consent. Here’s what they had to say.

How does the porn industry talk about consent? “There is a more developed everyday conversation about consent that goes on in the industry than you can find anywhere else,” says Constance Penley, who teaches a class on the history of porn at the University of California-Santa Barbara.

The conversation starts during contract negotiations, Penley says, when actors, often represented by agents, agree to the number and gender of partners, the kind of sexual acts, and how much they’ll be paid for a shoot. The formality of the arrangement tends to increase with the size of the production company, ranging from verbal agreements on minor shoots to the three-page “limits” packet that performers fill out for Kink.com, a major producer of BDSM pornography.

Still, consent in a contract is just paperwork. Sovereign Syre, who’s been in the business for six years, says that before every shoot she’s done, she also has talked to her co-stars about boundaries and preferences. The conversation continues throughout the scene. Even directors she’s known for years, Syre says, will ask before tucking in the label on her underwear or rearranging her hair. If, during filming, things get too intense, actors on BDSM shoots use agreed-upon safe words. To stop, “red.” To slow down, “mercy.”

“Being on a porn set, there should be far more room for you to convey those boundaries,” says Cyd Nova, a porn performer, producer, and the program director of the St. James Infirmary, a sex-worker-friendly clinic in San Francisco. Even if someone doesn’t say no or use the safe word, professional adult actors are better equipped to notice when their partners are bothered or unenthusiastic, Nova says. “You’re paid to understand and engage with people sexually.”

Doesn’t money change things? Of course. The mental, emotional, and physical calculus that most people use to determine their sexual boundaries shifts on set, where adult actors also have to consider their income. When they’re under financial pressure, they might feel as if they can’t afford to have a strict “no list.” “When you’ve got $1,000 on the line, there’s a psychology at play that says, ‘I’m willing to do it because I need the money,'” Syre says. Still, “that doesn’t mean that they deserve to be abused.”

It helps to be able to say no. Newcomers to the industry might not know they have that power, or they might be concerned about losing work, explains Conner Habib, vice president of the Adult Performers Advocacy Committee. (APAC is the closest thing porn actors have to a union. Deen resigned from its board after the allegations began to surface, though it’s still headed by his girlfriend). In part, it depends on the director: Most are receptive when performers ask to stop or change the scene, while Habib says others have asked him to reconsider his limits. A few are more insistent. “I’ve said no and had a director be like, ‘You’re not the director,’ and I’ll be like, ‘Yeah, I don’t care,'” Habib says.

Performers also may agree try new sex acts on camera, signing up for more extreme shoots to make extra money, only to realize later that they felt traumatized by whatever they agreed to do, Syre says. “There’s this larger dialogue going on about how can you consent to an act that is dynamic,” she says. “There have been jobs I’ve gone on where I went home and I said, ‘I don’t want to do that again, or I don’t like that person.’ I don’t think I’ve been traumatized by it. But I see that potential.”

Habib says his consent has been violated on camera—it’s just not anything he would label as rape. “I’ve definitely done scenes where I had a performer who just kept sticking his thumb up my ass,” Habib says. He stopped the scene and told the man to quit it. “And then he did it again.” Habib walked away for a few minutes. “When I came back, he said, ‘I just totally forgot.'” They finished the scene, but Habib created what he calls an “inward boundary”: If the man did it again, Habib would quit the shoot. “In my opinion, he’s someone who shouldn’t have worked in porn because he wasn’t able to listen.”

What are porn actors’ options for reporting rape? For now, there’s no protocol for reporting rape aside from going to authorities outside the industry. One obvious option is law enforcement—not an attractive choice for many people facing the stigma of sex work. Tori Lux says she decided not to tell the police that Deen raped her on set because of the common belief that women in porn can’t be assaulted. Likewise, Nicki Blue told the Daily Mail that she was afraid the police wouldn’t believe her story about Deen: “When you’re an adult actress, especially in BDSM, and you go to a cop and say, ‘Oh I’ve been raped by this guy after doing a scene,’ they are not going to take you seriously, like if you were a normal person.”

Alternatively, actors could file reports with the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which investigates reports of workplace sexual assault (the industry is based in the San Fernando Valley, with 60 to 70 percent of US adult films shot in Los Angeles county). But several performers told us that battles over mandatory condom regulations have alienated workers from the agency, and Cal/OSHA has not received any sexual-assault complaints from the adult entertainment industry in the last 10 years.

Still, actors who consider reporting sexual assault to their producers and directors may be afraid of backlash, Habib says. A woman identifying herself by her initials, T.M., told LAist that she was afraid talking about Deen would hurt her career; Kora Peters says her agent at the time of her alleged rape told her she should be “honored” that Deen wanted her. The fear of blacklisting isn’t far-fetched, according to Nova: “If you say that you’re assaulted at work, some producers may decide they don’t want to work with you because they see you as a liability.”

In the absence of mechanisms for reporting and accountability on set, performers try to warn each other about actors who push limits—the same kind of rumors some performers reported hearing about Deen. According to Syre, some circles of performers have successfully shut out men who became known for abusing their girlfriends. But for those who are new to the industry or lack connections, word of mouth is “not very foolproof,” Nova says.

How will the Deen allegations affect porn moving forward? It’s difficult to say for sure, though at APAC’s last meeting of performers, directors, and producers, attendees discussed designing a possible industry-wide reporting system. What is clear is that just because porn has its own “best practices” doesn’t mean that people follow them. Even with Kink.com’s limits checklist, Ashley Fires, Nicki Blue, and Lily LaBeau all allege that Deen assaulted them under its supervision. There are rules, and then there are rule breakers—just as in any industry, Penley says. “This does not represent porn,” said Joanna Angel, a prominent alt-porn director and actor who spoke about her past relationship with Deen to radio host Jason Ellis last week. “This represents a specific individual, and I do not want the public to blame porn for anything.”

Yet several industry-specific factors, from the lack of reporting options or the stigma that keeps women from talking to the authorities—or convinces them that speaking out would invite attacks on their community—work to keep many sexual-assault victims in porn silent. “In the absence of people’s legitimate issues being taken seriously and addressed,” Queen says, “people tweet and write blogs and go to the court of public opinion.”

Link: 

How to Talk About Consent Like a Porn Star

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, Cascade, Citizen, FF, G & F, GE, Jason, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How to Talk About Consent Like a Porn Star

A Diplomatic, Apocalyptic Game of Jenga

Mother Jones

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

This story was originally published by Wired and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

Draft three of the Paris climate document is here, but it ain’t over yet. The delegates still have plenty of sleepless hours left.

And they have plenty of brackets to argue over, too. Those areas of disagreement—especially in the three seemingly intractable topics of finance, differentiation, and loss and damage. For the uninitiated, that’s paying for the future, reparations for the past, and whether the countries footing those bills are long term developed places like the US, or if they should include developing countries like China. On the positive side, the draft looks like it’s finally converged on a goal: To keep the global average temperature from warming between 1.5 and 2 degrees C above historic levels.

That said, this version of the agreement is actually starting to look like an agreement. Today’s bracket-count is a solid 50, down from 361 in Wednesday’s draft. “To extent that unbracketed sections of text reflect agreement, it seems like a lot has been streamlined,” says Dan Bodansky, a legal expert on climate change at Arizona State University’s Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law.

The fights continue, of course. Rich countries don’t want to pay the damages climate change has already done to poor countries (heat waves, drought, sea level rise, etc.) Some countries want an independent agency or body to track emissions, and the results to be transparent. Other countries say that encroaches on their sovereignty.

But we’re close, right? Well…after French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius unveiled Wednesday’s draft, a bunch of countries sounded off with complaints about sections of the document that had been removed from brackets—which is to say, that everyone had agreed upon.

Is that confusing to you? Frustrating, perhaps? Welcome to COP freaking 21. See, when a section of text loses its brackets, that’s not necessarily because the countries have all agreed on it. In the negotiating process, countries and groups of countries wheel and deal over various aspects of the agreement. Some of this happens in large plenary gatherings, some of it happens in smaller working groups, and some of it happens in hotel rooms and hallways. All along the way, Fabius is keeping tabs. It is his job to interpret the decisions and write the agreement. In diplomatic slang, this is called “having the pen.” (I may have oversimplified the treaty process slightly. Ahem.)

That means Fabius can add or subtract brackets whenever he wants. Removing brackets tends to move discussions along. But Fabius is playing a diplomatic, apocalyptic game of Jenga. If he pulls too many at once, or demonstrates some kind of favoritism, the other countries can vote to take the pen away from him. “If I were the French, I would be concerned if push too far too early there will be a backlash and undercut your ability to do more,” says Bodansky. The trick is to calibrate the debracketing, so that the 11th hour draft is close enough an agreement that it gets voted in. It takes a very steady hand.

Fabius seems to be pretty good at this. Just about every other country’s delegates spend the first 30 seconds of their podium time lavishing praise on the guy. It doesn’t seem like the usual diplomatic BS. Then they get into their complaints with the document. C’est la vie. (Because I’m in France!)

But seriously, for a contrast to Fabius’ perspicacité, Look back to the 2009 Copenhagen climate meeting. It was the culmination of four years of negotiations during with the Danes had the pen. At the end, they revealed a document they’d written—and it bore little to no resemblance to what the negotiators had spent so long working on. Everyone basically walked away. And the world got hotter.

Comparatively, the French have been pretty canny. The question is whether they can keep pushing both hard, and soft, enough.

Excerpt from – 

A Diplomatic, Apocalyptic Game of Jenga

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, Hagen, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Diplomatic, Apocalyptic Game of Jenga

Gun Activists Plan to Stage a Fake Mass Shooting This Weekend

Mother Jones

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

Gun rights activists in Texas are planning to stage a mock mass shooting at the University of Texas this weekend in protest of both gun-free zones and President Barack Obama’s continued calls for tougher gun control legislation.

According to the website Statesman, gun rights supporters will begin the day by marching through Austin with loaded weapons and conclude their walk with a “theatrical performance.”

A spokesman for the two participating gun rights groups, Come and Take It Texas and DontComply.com, told the site the event will involve using fake blood and bullhorns to mimic gunshot noises.

“In the wake of yet another gun free zone shooting, Obama is using it to aggressively push his gun confiscation agenda,” a Facebook page for the event read. “Now is the time to stand up, take a walk, speak out against the lies and put an end to the gun free killing zones.”

In June, state lawmakers made Texas the eighth state in the country to allow students to carry concealed weapons on campus grounds. Saturday’s event comes amid ongoing concerns about the new law.

“We want criminals to fear the public being armed,” spokesman Matthew Short said. “An armed society is a polite society.”

View original post here: 

Gun Activists Plan to Stage a Fake Mass Shooting This Weekend

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gun Activists Plan to Stage a Fake Mass Shooting This Weekend

Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal

Mother Jones

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

On Wednesday afternoon at the massive global climate summit in Paris, diplomats unveiled a new draft (PDF) of the document they hope will save the world from global warming. After a week and a half of chipping away at the agreement, it’s considerably shorter—in fact, it’s about half the length it was just a couple of days ago. That’s a good sign that some points of contention are getting resolved, and that the prospects for an agreed-upon final draft are better than ever. Word around the campfire here is that the conference could wrap on time—by the end of Friday—which would be virtually unprecedented in the 20-year history of global climate talks.

The new draft dropped just minutes after Secretary of State John Kerry gave his strongest speech in Paris so far, telling world leaders that the United States wants to get even more ambitious over the next couple of days. He said that the United States would join the European Union and dozens of developing nations in the “High Ambition Coalition,” a group that has emerged since the weekend and hopes to achieve many of the key goals sought by climate activists.

To that end, Kerry also said the United States will double the amount of cash it makes available to vulnerable countries that are already hit hard by climate change impacts. The number is still pretty small—just $861 million by 2020—but it’s likely to be the last olive branch the United States extends as the talks approach their conclusion and Republicans in Congress continue to hammer President Barack Obama’s climate agenda.

“The situation demands—and this moment demands—that we do not leave Paris without an ambitious, inclusive, and durable global climate agreement,” Kerry said. “Our aim can be nothing less than a steady transformation of the global economy.”

Whether the Paris accord will actually make that happen is still far from certain. Everyone here acknowledges that there’s no chance the agreement will limit global warming to 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit), the threshold that world leaders agreed to at the last major summit in 2009. (Some players here, especially the small island nations, are adamant that even that amount is far too high.) Instead, the object of this document is to require countries to ramp up their climate goals over time, most likely every five years. That appears to be the best chance we have of staving off the worst impacts of climate change.

“Everything that happens in Paris should be an enabling mechanism for future ambition,” said Derek Walker,* associate vice president of global climate at the Environmental Defense Fund. “Paris has to be a catalyst. It’s in no way, shape, or form a final chapter.”

At this stage, it seems highly likely that that kind of periodic review will take place. But there’s still a lot of ambiguity about what exactly that will look like. How will the international community actually enforce its climate goals? Could there be sanctions, independent investigative review boards, or some other system? In his statement, Kerry’s view on these questions was muddled.

“No one is forced to do more than what is possible,” he said. “There’s no punishment, no penalty, but there has to be oversight.” Even though each country’s individual greenhouse gas reduction targets won’t be legally binding, “that doesn’t mean a country can get away with doing nothing or next to nothing.”

Huh.

That’s just one of perhaps a dozen major questions that remain on the table for Kerry and his peers, said Jake Schmidt, director of the international program at the Natural Resources Defense Council. One of the most significant is climate finance, i.e., how wealthy countries will help poorer countries pay for climate change adaptation and clean energy development. Most negotiators agree that there needs to be an annual minimum of $100 billion raised collectively toward this end. But should that specific number be in the legally binding agreement? The US delegation doesn’t want it to be, Schmidt said, because of the added pressure that could create on the country to cough up more cash. How, exactly, should the figure be increased over time, if at all? How, exactly, should it be divided between the United States, the European Union, and other wealthy players? Those questions remain on the table.

Three options for climate finance in the latest draft agreement

Still, the atmosphere here is decidedly optimistic (if a bit bleary eyed and frazzled). There appear to be no fights about basic negotiation procedure questions, which have bogged down previous summits. There appear to be no negotiators who think the whole document is totally unnecessary, or a total sham. All the highest-ranking officials seem doggedly committed to not leaving Paris without some kind of agreement to take home.

Now they just have about 36 hours to finally agree on what it should say. This afternoon, French officials said negotiators should be prepared for consecutive all-nighters. The conference center is sprinkled with nap couches and is liberally stocked with baguette sandwiches, coffee, and wine.

“I think our sense is that almost everything we need for an ambitious agreement is still in play,” said Jennifer Morgan, director of global climate programs at the World Resources Institute. “But there is an immense amount of work to be done in the coming hours.”

*Name corrected

Source article: 

Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, Mop, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Explained in 90 Seconds: Here’s Why You Should Be Hopeful About the Paris Climate Deal

The Shocking New Numbers on HIV in America

Mother Jones

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

On the surface, the news about HIV in the United States sounds good. According to a new report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the diagnosis rate dropped 19 percent from 2005 to 2014—a dramatic decline. Among heterosexuals, new HIV diagnoses fell by 35 percent; among people who inject drugs, 63 percent; among women, 40 percent. And the CDC estimates that 87 percent of people with HIV know their status, representing a modest gain in testing and awareness.

Yet the trend toward steady diagnosis rates masks large disparities among men who have sex with men (MSM), who account for 67 percent of HIV-positive Americans. For black men in this group, already disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS, diagnoses rose 22 percent; for Latino men, they’ve increased almost a quarter, an increase likely attributable to more infections, not better testing, the CDC told The Verge.

The steepest increases in HIV diagnoses have occurred among black and Latino gay youth between the ages of 13 and 24: 5,540 teens received the diagnosis in 2014, a rise of 87 percent since 2005.

Diagnosis stats tell only part of the story: More than two-thirds of transmissions come from people who know that they are HIV positive but are not receiving care. Just 39 percent of people with HIV are being treated for it; only 30 percent have a reduced viral load.

Last Tuesday, CDC director Thomas Frienden published an essay with Jonathan Mermin, the government’s HIV/AIDS prevention chief, warning that the United States may still lose the fight against AIDS. “Hundreds of thousands of people with diagnosed HIV infection are not receiving care,” they wrote. “These people account for most new HIV transmissions in the United States.”

In July, the government released a list of targets for 2020 to measure progress in the fight against HIV/AIDS. They included reducing new diagnoses by at least 25 percent, boosting the percentage of HIV-positive people receiving medical care to 90 percent, and increasing the percentage with suppressed viral loads to 80 percent.

The techniques to fight those battles exist. One promising preventative therapy involves treating uninfected but at-risk people with a combination of anti-HIV drugs known as Truvada. And in May, the CDC halted a study on the effects of early treatment because its benefits were so obvious.

But just because the drugs exist doesn’t mean that people can access them. Last year, CDC researchers highlighted how difficult it can be for some minority communities to receive health care and supportive services for HIV, and they called for better outreach from state and local health departments, community-based organizations, and individual health care providers.

“Faster progress depends on our collective ability to take full advantage of these tools in every community and every region of the country,” wrote the CDC researchers in the latest report. “We need to boldly address stigma, discrimination, and other social, economic, and structural issues that increase vulnerability to HIV and come between people and the care they need.”

Link:  

The Shocking New Numbers on HIV in America

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Shocking New Numbers on HIV in America