Tag Archives: top stories

Giant Slaughterhouse Recalls Fancy Grass-Fed Beef After Processing "Diseased and Unsound Animals"

Mother Jones

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

Last month, Rancho Feeding Corp., a slaughterhouse in Petaluma, California, issued a small recall notice, for beef it had processed on a particular day in 2013. That much was routine—meat processing facilities have to pull back product with some regularity when contamination is discovered. But the Rancho recall was different: Earlier this month, the company announced that it needed to recall all the beef it processed in 2013—8.7 million pounds in all, found in more than a thousand grocery stores in 30 states. The most famous of the recalled items are Nestle Hot Pockets, but the plant produced a lot of other beef products for wholesale, including cheeks, lips, liver, oxtail, and other parts. So have you eaten any of that beef? Here’s some background:

What is Rancho Feeding Corp.?

Before it ceased operations last week, Rancho Feeding Corp. was the only USDA-approved slaughterhouse within about a three-hour radius of Petaluma. According to Stephanie Larson, the livestock and range advisor at the University of California’s Cooperative Extension system, about 25 percent of Rancho’s customers were “niche-market” operations—many of which raised grass-fed and organic beef. The other 75 percent of the company’s business was meat destined for burgers, tacos, chili, and other processed foods for supermarkets and restaurants. Many of Rancho’s clients were dairies seeking to slaughter cows that were no longer giving milk.

Just how much meat is 8.7 million pounds?

A few years back, my colleague Tom Philpott calculated that Cargill’s 36 million pounds of recalled ground turkey was enough to make burgers for the residents of the world’s six most populous cities. By the same logic, the 8.7 million pounds of Rancho recalled beef could make burgers for every resident of New York, London, and Tokyo. As Gwynn Guilford at Quartz points out, letting that much potentially dodgy meat slip through the cracks is what happens when the government skimps on inspectors.

Why did they recall it?

According to the USDA’ s Food Safety and Inspection Service, Rancho issued the recall after FSIS inspectors determined that it had “processed diseased and unsound animals and carried out these activities without the benefit or full benefit of federal inspection.” It was a Class I recall, which means the FSIS considered it “a health hazard situation where there is a reasonable probability that the use of the product will cause serious, adverse health consequences or death.” Beyond the recall notice, though, FSIS has offered few details. So far, there are no reports of people getting sick after eating tainted beef processed by Rancho.

How does the recall affect ranchers?

Yesterday, the Los Angeles Times reported that Marin Sun Farms, an artisanal meat producer in Point Reyes Station, California, has bought Rancho Feeding Corp. If the company reopens the facility as a USDA-approved slaughterhouse, Rancho’s former clients will likely be relieved, since Rancho was the only game in town. (Consolidation of slaughterhouses is a problem for ranchers across the nation.)

Bill Niman, the founder of sustainable meat company Niman Ranch who now runs a grass-fed operation called BN Ranch, told the Village Voice that Rancho’s closing would be “a great loss to the Northern California food community.”

Sally Gale and her husband own Chileno Valley Ranch, a 600-acre, hundred-head beef operation in Marin County that sells grass-fed beef directly to consumers. The Gales, who have owned their ranch for 15 years, used to hire a slaughterer to dispatch their steers on their property. (A few years ago, Bonne Azab Powell profiled a traveling slaughterer in Mother Jones.) But about five years ago, they received a notice saying that the practice was illegal and that they must take their animals to a USDA-certified slaughterhouse. The only one in the area was Rancho.

Because of the recall, the Gales have had to dispose of three adult steers—worth about $1,600 each—that Rancho had slaughtered. If Rancho closes, Sally Gale worries that the long drive to the next closest slaughterhouse, more than 150 miles away, will stress the animals and add an extra expense to what Gale describes as an “already marginal business.” California’s drought has hit ranches like hers hard, she says, and she expects that many will have to charge their customers more to make up for the losses.

Typically, Chileno Valley Ranch sends about 6 cows to slaughter every week. Now, the Gales will be waiting until they have 30 ready to make the long trip worthwhile. “The government told us that we couldn’t slaughter our own meat,” says Gale. “And now they’re telling us that we can’t bring them to Rancho either.”

Read More:  

Giant Slaughterhouse Recalls Fancy Grass-Fed Beef After Processing "Diseased and Unsound Animals"

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Giant Slaughterhouse Recalls Fancy Grass-Fed Beef After Processing "Diseased and Unsound Animals"

Charts: Hollywood’s White Dude Problem

Mother Jones

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

It’s 2014, yet women and people of color still are vastly underrepresented in the United States media landscape. A report published Wednesday by the Women’s Media Center found that, while some progress toward equality has been made, journalism and entertainment still lack a diversity of voices and a variety in representation. If the US media were a person, he’d be an old white guy.

Read More:

Charts: Hollywood’s White Dude Problem

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Charts: Hollywood’s White Dude Problem

Are We Bound to Forget How the Iraq War Really Happened?

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

It’s 2053—20 years since you needed a computer, tablet, or smart phone to go online. At least, that’s true in the developed world: you know, China, India, Brazil, and even some parts of the United States. Cybernetic eye implants allow you to see everything with a digital overlay. And once facial recognition software was linked to high-speed records searches, you had the lowdown on every person standing around you. Of course, in polite society you still introduce yourself as if you don’t instantly know another person’s net worth, arrest record, and Amazooglebook search history. (Yes, the fading old-tech firms Amazon, Google, and Facebook merged in 2033.) You also get a tax break these days if you log into one of the government’s immersive propaganda portals. (Nope, “propaganda” doesn’t have negative connotations anymore.) So you choose the Iraq War 50th Anniversary Commemoration Experience and take a stroll through the virtual interactive timeline.

Look to your right, and you see happy Iraqis pulling down Saddam’s statueand showering US Marines with flowers and candy. Was that exactly how it happened? Who really remembers? Now, you’re walking on the flight deck of what they used to call an aircraft carrier behind a flight-suit-clad President George W. Bush. He turns and shoots you a thumbs-up under a “mission accomplished” banner. A voice beamed into your head says that Bush proclaimed victory that day, but that for years afterward, valiant US troops would have to re-win the war again and again. Sounds a little strange, but okay.

A few more paces down the digital road and you encounter a sullen looking woman holding a dog leash, the collar attached to a man lying nude on the floor of a prison. Your digital tour guide explains: “An unfortunate picture was taken. Luckily, the bad apple was punished and military honor was restored.” Fair enough. Soon, a digital General David Petraeus strides forward and shoots you another thumbs-up. (It looks as if they just put a new cyber-skin over the President Bush avatar to save money.) “He surged his way to victory and the mission was accomplished again,” you hear over strains of the National Anthem and a chorus of “hooahs.”

Continue Reading »

View this article – 

Are We Bound to Forget How the Iraq War Really Happened?

Posted in Anchor, Cyber, FF, GE, LAI, Landmark, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Are We Bound to Forget How the Iraq War Really Happened?

"I Don’t Want to Create a Paper Trail": Inside the Secret Apple-Google Pact

Mother Jones

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

Whether waxing poetic about net neutrality or defending the merits of outsourcing, Silicon Valley execs love to talk about how a free market breeds innovation. So it might come as a surprise that some of those execs were engaged in a secret pact not to recruit one another’s employees—in other words, to game the labor market. The potentially illegal deals suppressed salaries across the sector by a whopping $3 billion, claims a class-action lawsuit scheduled for a May trial in San Jose, and were done to juice the bottom lines of some of the nation’s most profitable companies.

Documents filed in conjunction with the litigation, first reported last month by PandoDaily’s Mark Ames, offer a fascinating behind-the-scenes glimpse of interactions among the likes of Apple’s Steve Jobs, Google’s Eric Schmidt, and Intuit Chairman Bill Campbell. In early 2005, the documents show, Campbell brokered an anti-recruitment pact between Jobs and Schmidt, confirming to Jobs in an email that “Schmidt got directly involved and firmly stopped all efforts to recruit anyone from Apple.” On the day of that email, Apple’s head of human resources ordered her staff to “please add Google to your ‘hands off’ list.'” Likewise, Google’s recruiting director was asked to create a formal “Do Not Cold Call List” of companies with which it had “special agreements” not to compete for employees.

A few months later, Schmidt instructed a fellow exec not to discuss the no-call list other than “verbally,” he wrote in an email, “since I don’t want to create a paper trail over which we can be sued later?”

Eric Schmidt Google

Good luck with that. The “no poaching policies,” as they were known among senior-level executives at companies such as Adobe, Intuit, Intel, and Pixar, were first exposed by a 2010 anti-trust lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice. The DOJ complaint is the basis for the current class action, which was filed in 2011 by the San Francisco law firm Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, alleging that some 64,000 tech workers were harmed.

The case, interestingly, has garnered little attention outside of the tech world. Sure, the average middle-class worker probably won’t shed a tear for the most likely victim here: Silicon Valley code jockeys and junior execs banking six-figure salaries and perhaps million-dollar stock options. The Bay Area, after all, is recently ablaze with animosity over tech-fueled gentrification and income inequality. And yet the collusion of CEOs to artificially suppress high-end salaries speaks to an economic malaise that affects every working stiff: The widening gap between the rich and poor isn’t some accident of free-market capitalism, but the product of a system that puts corporate leaders and their shareholders ahead of everyone else.

The lawsuit describes the rapid spread of anti-recruitment pacts between 2004 and 2007—arrangements perhaps facilitated by the overlap on Silicon Valley’s corporate boards: Jobs, who became Disney’s largest shareholder after it bought Pixar, served on Disney’s board until his death in 2011. Eric Schmidt sat on Apple’s board until 2009, and Intuit Chairman Bill Campbell (a former Schmidt advisor) still does. Intel CEO Paul Otellini has held a seat on Google’s board since 2004. Such close ties have long been seen as a problem for shareholders, but the non-recruitment pacts suggest that such cozy relationships could harm workers, too.

Steve Jobs, according to unsealed court documents obtained by Mother Jones, was a leading advocate and enforcer of the non-recruitment pacts. Two months after entering into the agreement with Google, he emailed Bruce Chizen, then Adobe’s CEO, complaining that Adobe was poaching Apple employees. Chizen’s reply, that he thought they’d agreed only to avoid “senior level employees,” didn’t satisfy Jobs. “OK, I’ll tell our recruiters that they are free to approach any Adobe employee who is not Sr. Director or VP,” he shot back. “Am I understanding your position correctly?”

Steve Jobs Acaben

Chizen responded that he would rather the arrangement apply to all employees:

DV.load(“//www.documentcloud.org/documents/1019491-adobe-apple-emails.js”,
width: 630,
height: 500,
sidebar: false,
container: “#DV-viewer-1019491-adobe-apple-emails”
);

Adobe Apple Emails (PDF)

Adobe Apple Emails (Text)

The next day, Adobe’s vice president of human resources announced to her recruiting team that “Bruce and Steve Jobs have an agreement that we not solicit ANY Apple employees, and vice versa.”

In one instance not yet reported, Jobs allegedly played hardball with a reluctant CEO. In mid-2007, he called Edward Colligan, then president and CEO of Palm, to propose “an arrangement between Palm and Apple by which neither company would hire the other’s employees,” Colligan testified in a sworn deposition. When he refused, citing the deal’s possible illegality, Jobs threatened to sue Palm for patent infringement. “I’m sure you realize the asymmetry in financial resources of our respective companies…,” he wrote Colligan in a followup email. “My advice is to take a look at your patent portfolio before you make a final decision here.”

The Valley’s hush-hush wage-control policies have been in play at least since the 1980s, soon after Jobs bought Lucasfilm’s “computer graphics division” and renamed it Pixar. As George Lucas later put it in a deposition, firms in the digital-filmmaking realm “could not get into a bidding war with other companies because we don’t have the margins for that sort of thing.” Lucas and Pixar’s then-president, Edward Catmull, made the following agreement, according to the lawsuit:

(1) not to cold call each other’s employees; (2) to notify each other when making an offer to an employee of the other company even if that employee applied for a job on his or her own initiative; and (3) that any offer would be “final” and would not be improved in response to a counter-offer by the employee’s current employer (whether Lucasfilm or Pixar).

George Lucas redtouchmedia/flickr

After its purchase by Disney in 2006, Pixar made the same “gentleman’s agreement” with Apple, according to unsealed emails from the lawsuit. (Last year, Pixar, Lucasfilm, and Intuit settled their part of the class-action lawsuit for an undisclosed sum in a deal that allows the affected employees to file anonymous claims.)

In its earlier anti-trust suit, the DOJ argued that the Valley’s no-poaching agreements were patently illegal—clear violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act’s ban on restraining interstate commerce. In 2011, without admitting fault or paying fines, Google, Apple, and four other tech firms settled with the DOJ and agreed to discontinue their anti-competitive behavior.

Representatives for Apple and Google declined to comment for this story, but Google argued at the time that its pacts hadn’t hurt workers. There’s “no evidence that our policy hindered hiring or affected wages,” a Google attorney wrote on the company’s public policy blog. But “we abandoned our ‘no cold calling’ policy in late 2009 once the Justice Department raised concerns, and are happy to continue with this approach as part of the settlement.”

Whether and how the pacts truly affected wages is at the heart of the ongoing suit, which is slated for trial May 27. The defendant firms insist that their employees’ salaries weren’t widely suppressed because they were based on a “pay for performance” model. That is, workers got raises based on their accomplishments, not on what their co-workers earned.

Continue Reading »

See original: 

"I Don’t Want to Create a Paper Trail": Inside the Secret Apple-Google Pact

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "I Don’t Want to Create a Paper Trail": Inside the Secret Apple-Google Pact

Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders

Mother Jones

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

The company behind the Oscar-nominated film Dallas Buyers Club sued 31 people in a federal district court in Texas this month for allegedly using the legal file-sharing service BitTorrent to download the movie illegally. The lawsuit is one of thousands that have been brought by companies against BitTorrent users in recent years, in an effort to crack down on Americans who are stealing movies, music, porn, books, and software. But it could have a tough time. Recently, several federal judges have ruled that key information—computer Internet Protocol (IP) addresses— used by film studios and others to target supposed thefts is insufficient proof to proceed with the lawsuits. And copyright experts say that even though companies are still winning lots of settlements, these firms are going after fewer plaintiffs at once than they were a few years ago. This suggests that their ability to pursue large piracy cases has been hampered.

“I think the trend is towards judges looking at piracy cases more carefully than they used to, requiring more upfront investigation,” says Mitch Stoltz, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). “There may always be some judges who will simply rubber-stamp these cases…but there are fewer of those judges than before.”

When companies bring copyright lawsuits, they often don’t know the identities of the alleged pirates. (This was true in the Dallas Buyers Club case.) Instead, they use IP addresses, unique numbers assigned to each device on an internet network, to track the computers that have been used for illegal downloading. Then they ask a judge to issue a subpoena to the internet service providers, so they can obtain the name of the person associated with that IP address. If the judge approves this request, plaintiffs can make additional demands, such as seeking a copy of the person’s hard drive. Armed with this information, the plaintiff then typically forces the defendants to settle. The average settlement ranges from $2,000 to $5,000, says Jeffrey Antonelli, a Chicago attorney who has represented numerous people accused of illegal BitTorrent use.

But this strategy isn’t perfect. “IP addresses are continuing to be less and less of an indicator of the identity of a particular person or computer on the net,” says R. Polk Wagner, a law professor at the University of Pennsylvania who specializes in intellectual property law. The name connected to an IP address usually identifies who is the paying the internet bill, not who is doing the downloading. Ten years ago, most people didn’t use wireless routers at home, but now, more than 60 percent of people do. And all the computers using a single wireless router have the same IP address. So if your tech-savvy neighbor is piggybacking off your wireless internet—and illegally downloading Mean Girls—you could take the heat. And Stoltz, from the Electronic Frontier Foundation, points out that when people receive settlement letters, they are often scared into paying up—”even when they didn’t download illegally, or had valid defenses.”

Here’s an example of how imprecise IP addresses can be in pinpointing a specific computer: In 2012, law enforcement tried to catch a person making online threats to local police in Indiana by tracing the person’s IP address to a specific house. After a SWAT team broke down the door and tossed a couple of flashbangs into the entryway, they realized they’d gotten the wrong place. The home had an open wi-fi router. The threats were coming from down the street.

Recently, some judges have become more wary about granting subpoenas to companies who come to them with only IP addresses. Last month, a judge in the US District Court for the Western District of Washington at Seattle dismissed a case brought by the studio that produced Elf-Man—a direct-to-video Christmas movie—against 152 anonymous defendants. According to the judge, “simply identifying the account holder associated with an IP address tells us very little about who actually downloaded Elf-Man.” In May 2013, a federal judge in California came down hard and issued a $81,320 fine against copyright holders that were “porno trolling” or going after people accused of downloading porn illegally. According to the judge, the plaintiff, Ingenuity 13 LLC, relied too heavily on IP addresses and did not do an adequate enough investigation to bring claims. And in May 2012, a federal district judge in New York reached a similar conclusion about IP addresses, as did a federal judge in Illinois the year before. Wagner notes, “Judges are increasingly realizing that IP addresses don’t have a high degree of reliability, and they’re not an accurate representation of who has control of the computer.”

Antonelli, the Chicago attorney, takes a different position. “Sure, we’ve seen a sprinkling of courts that have taken this position,” he says, “but in my opinion, it’s not enough, especially when you look at just how many lawsuits are being filed. I don’t see a trend yet.” He notes, however, that studios are no longer going after tens of thousands of plaintiffs at once, like they were doing from 2011 to late 2012. In 2011, for example, the producers for Hurt Locker sued almost 25,000 BitTorrent users—and almost all the claims were voluntarily dismissed by the studio, because it was taking too long to track down all of the defendants via their IP addresses. “That’s certainly changed. Typically we see no more than 100 defendants…I think that was a smart move on the plaintiffs. Courts were losing patience,” says Antonelli. Wanger adds, “It’s possible companies think that if they sue fewer people who are doing more significant activities, that’s a more defensible public relations approach.” (The Motion Picture Association of America and the Recording Industry Association of America didn’t provide comment to Mother Jones as to whether studios are now going after fewer plaintiffs.)

For now, whether or not the Dallas Buyers Club producers will be able to successfully subpoena the alleged downloaders remains to be seen. (An attorney representing the producers did not return multiple requests for comment.) “It really depends on the judge assigned to the case,” says Stoltz. He says movies studios should be able to bring claims that are plausible, based on the facts they gather before suing.

The founder of the website Die Troll Die, who goes by the name John Doe, says that he started his website to fight alleged copyright trolls after being sued for copyright infringement—something he claims he didn’t do. He says he’s happy to see that the tide is turning against companies using IP addresses to bring lawsuits. He told Mother Jones via email, “I can say first-hand that being threatened with a lawsuit because someone else used your internet connection is a horrible experience.”

See more here:  

Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders

Posted in Anchor, FF, For Dummies, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta, Wiley | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why It’s Getting Harder to Sue Illegal Movie Downloaders

How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?

Mother Jones

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

It’s easy to find bad information about the safety of vaccines on the internet. That’s, well, the internet. But what’s scarier is that in many states, parents who buy into those myths can easily opt out of immunizing their children. In some cases, it’s no harder than checking a box on a school form saying that vaccines are against their “personal beliefs.”

In a 2012 study of vaccine exemption policies across the country, a team of researchers led by Saad Omer, a professor of public health at Emory University, found that of the 20 states that allowed personal belief exemptions for enrollment in a public school or child-care program, less than a third made it “difficult” to do so (for instance, by making parents re-apply for one each year, explain their beliefs in writing, or get a notarized letter of approval from a health care provider). In the nine “easy” states identified in the study, the rules required only signing a form. Indeed, Omer suspects that some parents sign vaccine exemption forms not because they actually hold anti-vaccine beliefs, but simply because it’s easier than juggling the doctors’ appointments, missed work, and other inconveniences of getting kids vaccinated. (More about that here.)

Personal belief exemptions aren’t the only option available to vaccine-averse parents. Every state allows for medical exemptions for reasons such as an anaphylactic allergic response to a previous vaccine. Forty-eight states (all but West Virginia and Mississippi) allow exemptions on religious grounds. In many states, obtaining a religious exemption isn’t any harder than getting a personal belief exemption. But according to Omer, religious exemptions aren’t as popular as personal belief exemptions. He’s found that opt-out rates in states that allow personal belief exemptions are 2.5 times as high as rates in states that only permit religious exemptions. In one analysis he found that whooping cough rates in states with personal belief exemptions are more than double those in states that allow only religious exemptions.

Unsurprisingly, Omer’s research also shows that states that make it easy to get a non-medical exemption see a corresponding dip in numbers of schoolchildren who get their shots. Rates of non-medical exemptions in the “easy” states were 2.3 times higher than rates in states with difficult exemption policies. Not only that, but that rate is climbing faster in easy states than it is in difficult states.

Rates of Nonmedical Exemptions from School Immunization, According to Type of Exemption and Ease of Obtaining One, 2006–2011 Saad Omer et al, The New England Journal of Medicine

Non-medical vaccine exemptions are dangerous because they threaten what’s known as “herd immunity:” Diseases simply can’t spread in a community where a high enough percentage of the population is vaccinated against them. The required percentage of vaccinations to ensure herd immunity varies by disease; for pertussis (whooping cough), it’s between 93 and 95 percent, according to Johns Hopkins’ Jessica Atwell, lead author of a study on pertussis and vaccines published last year in the journal Pediatrics. So if even a seemingly small number of kids across the state aren’t getting their shots, the immunity rate of the entire community can drop below safe levels. When that happens, lots of people are put at risk: infants who are too young to get shots, children who haven’t had their full series of shots yet, and those who can’t get vaccinated for medical reasons such as pregnancy or immune-system problems. And, of course, the exempted, unvaccinated children are also at risk.

In California, the percentage of kindergartners who get their full set of shots has been dropping since 2008, while the rate of personal belief exemptions jumped by nearly a percentage point in that time. Given that the national average exemption rate is 1.8 percent, that’s a big increase. During a California outbreak of pertussis in 2010, more than 9,000 cases were reported, and ten infants died. It was the worst outbreak of whooping cough in 60 years.

In the Pediatrics study, Atwell and her fellow researchers identified 39 geographic “clusters” across California—ranging in size from a few blocks to entire counties—where belief-driven opt-out rates are higher than the norm. The team found higher rates of whooping cough associated with these clusters. For example: Marin County, which had a personal belief exemption rate of 7.8 percent in 2012—nearly four times the national average—has the second-highest rate of whooping cough in the whole state. These results support the findings of a 2006 study led by Emory’s Omer which found higher rates of pertussis in states that allowed personal belief exemptions and had easy policies for doing so.

California is not the only state with high-exemption hotspots. On Vashon Island, Washington, 17 percent of kindergartners failed to receive their shots in 2013 due to a “personal/philosophical” exemption. That’s nine times the current national average. The year before, Vashon Islanders accounted for 16 percent of all whooping cough cases in Washington state’s King County, despite housing just one percent of its population. And a 2008 study of exemption rates in Michigan found 23 clusters within the state, and, you guessed it, a correlation with higher rates of whooping cough. Even individual schools and churches can serve as ground zero: After a measles outbreak broke out in north Texas in 2012, the state epidemiologist linked it t a local megachurch whose pastor had spread anti-vaccine myths in the past.

Now, some states are rethinking the personal belief loophole. Reeling from the 2010 outbreak, California passed a law making it harder to get a personal belief exemption. As of January 1, parents seeking a personal belief exemption have to obtain the signature of an authorized health care provider. (Finding such a doctor may not be easy; recent studies show that more pediatricians are choosing to drop patients who refuse to vaccinate their children.)

But not all states that currently allow personal belief exemptions are looking to tighten the rules for getting one. In a study released last week in the Journal of the American Medical Association, Omer and his colleagues surveyed the legislative landscape of vaccine exemptions, state by state. They found that of 36 bills introduced across the country last year, 31 sought to expand access to exemptions. While none of these passed, they far outweighed the number of restrictive bills; five were introduced, and three of these passed, in Washington, Vermont, and California.

There’s evidence that tightening exemption laws makes a difference. After reaching an exemption rate of 7.6 percent in 2009, Washington state passed a law requiring parents to get a doctor’s signature if they wanted to opt out of their children’s vaccinations. In just two years, the exemption rate plummeted by more than 40 percent. Pertussis vaccination rates climbed to 92.4 percent in the past school year, representing “the highest pertussis vaccine completion rate for kindergartners since the state began to collect this data in the 2006-2007 school year,” according to the Washington’s Department of Health.

Now Colorado wants to follow suit. The state is tied for ninth in the nation (with Maine) for the number of kindergartners who show up at school with vaccine exemptions—nearly 3,000 of Colorado kindergartners in the 2012-2013 school year, according to the CDC. To get a personal belief exemption, parents need only fill out a single form. Recently, a task force led by the state health department released a set of recommendations for lowering the state’s high opt-out rate. Among them: publicizing the percentage of immunized kids at every public school or child-care center in the state.

Additional research by AJ Vicens and Eric Wuestewald.

Read article here:

How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Many People Aren’t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?

Actress Ellen Page Comes Out As Gay: "Happy Valentine’s Day. I Love You."

Mother Jones

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

Oscar-nominated actress and self-described “tiny Canadian” Ellen Page (Inception, The East, Juno) came out as a gay woman on Valentine’s Day.

She made the announcement in a moving speech delivered at the Human Rights Campaign Foundation’s inaugural Time to Thrive conference in Las Vegas. You can watch the 26-year-old actress’s remarks above. Here is an excerpt:

I’m inspired to be in this room because every single one of you is here for the same reason. You’re here because you’ve adopted as a core motivation the simple fact that this world would be a whole lot better if we just made an effort to be less horrible to one another. If we took just 5 minutes to recognize each other’s beauty, instead of attacking each other for our differences. That’s not hard. It’s really an easier and better way to live. And ultimately, it saves lives.

Then again, it’s not easy at all. It can be the hardest thing, because loving other people starts with loving ourselves and accepting ourselves. I know many of you have struggled with this. I draw upon your strength and your support, and have, in ways you will never know.

I’m here today because I am gay. And because…maybe I can make a difference. To help others have an easier and more hopeful time. Regardless, for me, I feel a personal obligation and a social responsibility.

I also do it selfishly, because I am tired of hiding and I am tired of lying by omission. I suffered for years because I was scared to be out. My spirit suffered, my mental health suffered and my relationships suffered. And I’m standing here today, with all of you, on the other side of that pain. I am young, yes, but what I have learned is that love, the beauty of it, the joy of it and yes, even the pain of it, is the most incredible gift to give and to receive as a human being. And we deserve to experience love fully, equally, without shame and without compromise.

There are too many kids out there suffering from bullying, rejection, or simply being mistreated because of who they are. Too many dropouts. Too much abuse. Too many homeless. Too many suicides. You can change that and you are changing it.

But you never needed me to tell you that. That’s why this was a little bit weird. The only thing I can really say is…what I have been building up to for the past 5 minutes. Thank you. Thank you for inspiring me. Thank you for giving me hope, and please keep changing the world for people like me.

Happy Valentine’s Day. I love you.

After her speech, Page received the following show of support from House of Cards star Kate Mara:

(As flagged by TheWrap, Page satirized lesbian rumors about her in a 2008 Saturday Night Live sketch.)

Page is set to star alongside Julianne Moore and Zach Galifianakis in Freeheld, an upcoming drama based on the true story of the late Laurel Hester, a terminally ill New Jersey police lieutenant who fought a long battle to pass on pension benefits to her female domestic partner. Page, a proud feminist, has long been a supporter of marriage equality and LGBT rights. She is also passionate about climate action, reproductive rights, and raising awareness about human rights abuses in Burma. Here’s a video for the US Campaign for Burma from 2008, in which she declares, “Hitler is alive in Burma”:

View original: 

Actress Ellen Page Comes Out As Gay: "Happy Valentine’s Day. I Love You."

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Actress Ellen Page Comes Out As Gay: "Happy Valentine’s Day. I Love You."

This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

Mother Jones

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

Department of the Navy

This map of the location of US Navy ships during the 2012 attack on the consulate in Benghazi, Libya, obtained by the conservative group Judicial Watch, is the latest purported smoking gun in what Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) has called “the worst tragedy since 9/11.” The implication: The White House was in a position to intervene while the attack was ongoing but, for some reason, chose not to. “Map Shows Dozens of U.S. Military Ships Stationed In North Africa Waters During Benghazi Attack,” wrote Katie Pavlich at Town Hall, a headline that was picked up by the esteemed Fox Nation.

But that’s not quite right. Most of the “dozens” of ships were nowhere near Benghazi, and the list includes many vessels that wouldn’t do much good in a rescue situation. For instance, the Lewis and Clark is a cargo vessel, and it was somewhere off the coast of West Africa. The map features eight minesweepers and a tug boat in Bahrain, in the Persian Gulf, a very long way from Benghazi. The Laramie, an oiler, was off the coast of Yemen. Per the Navy, the nearest aircraft carrier was 128 hours away. Only a handful of ships were even in the same body of water as Benghazi, and given the small window in which the attack unfolded, mobilizing a destroyer from the Iranian coastline probably wasn’t going to fix the problem.

Still, with Hillary Clinton, the secretary of state at the time, mulling a presidential bid, expect even more Benghazi “smoking guns” in the years ahead.

Link:

This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on This Map Is Not the Benghazi Smoking Gun Conservatives Think It Is

When Shirley Temple Black Was a Vietnam War Hawk on the Campaign Trail

Mother Jones

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

Shirley Temple Black, the beloved 1930s child movie-star who reinvented herself in later years as an American diplomat, died Monday at her Woodside, California, home at the age of 85.

She was tremendously successful on the international stage as a film star (she is ranked as number 18 on the American Film Institute’s list of top female screen legends), but found less success in national politics. In 1967, Black mounted an unsuccessful campaign to represent California’s 11th congressional district. (Superstar Bing Crosby was on her campaign’s finance committee.) A Republican, Black ran on an anti-racism, anti-crime, pro-war platform.

Here’s an excerpt from an Associated Press story from October 1967 that demonstrates how hawkish on Vietnam the one-time Bright Eyes star was:

As for the war in Vietnam, Mrs. Black said: “President Johnson should rely more on the advice of the Joint Chiefs of Staff than on the advice of Defense Secretary (Robert S.) McNamara.”

“Obviously, civilians make the policy. But after the policy is made, that’s the time you bring in the key military leaders, in order to form the strategy and tactics of how to achieve your goals.”

Aligning herself with the hawks in the debate over what to do in Vietnam, Mrs. Black said she thought U.S. forces should mine the approaches to Haiphong, the principal port, to cut off military supplies from Red China and the Soviet Union.

(Mining that Vietnamese port is something the Nixon administration ended up doing in 1972 during Operation Pocket Money.)

Well, Shirley Temple didn’t win. She lost the Republican nomination to Paul McCloskey, a Korean War vet who strongly opposed US military involvement in Vietnam. “I will be back,” she told supporters at the time of her defeat. “This was my first race and now I know how the game is played. I plan to dedicate my life and energies to public service because I think my country needs it now more than ever.”

Black indeed came back, but perhaps not in the way she initially imagined. In 1968, she went on a European fundraising tour for the Nixon presidential campaign. In 1969, President Nixon appointed her to the five-member delegation to the UN General Assembly, where she earned praise for speaking out on issues such as environmental problems and refugee crises. She later served as US ambassador to Ghana from 1974 to 1976, President Gerald Ford’s chief of protocol for the State Department from 1976 to 1977, and ambassador to Czechoslovakia in 1989, serving there during the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.

Following the fall of communism, Black continued to serve in Prague—and found a creative method of mocking those who remained committed communists:

Needling any Communists who may be watching, Black sometimes appears on her home’s balcony in a T-shirt bearing her initials, STB, which also was the acronym of the now-disbanded Czech secret police. Asked what STB agents are doing these days, she replied, “Most of them are driving the taxis you ride around in.”

Now, here’s a photo of a young Shirley Temple posing with a signed photo of President Franklin D. Roosevelt:

Globe Photos/ZUMA

…and here’s one of an older Shirley Temple with co-star Ronald Reagan (decades later, she would serve during the Reagan administration as a State Department trainer):

face to face/ZUMA

Read this article – 

When Shirley Temple Black Was a Vietnam War Hawk on the Campaign Trail

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, Hagen, Hoffman, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on When Shirley Temple Black Was a Vietnam War Hawk on the Campaign Trail

Boehner Gives In, Introduces Clean Debt Ceiling Bill

Mother Jones

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

John Boehner has surrendered completely on the debt ceiling. None of his proposals managed to attract majority support among Republicans, so now he plans to introduce a clean bill and leave it up to Democrats to pass it:

“House Republican leaders told members this morning that it is clear the paid-for military COLA provision will not attract enough support, so we will be bringing up a ‘clean’ debt limit bill tomorrow,” a Republican official said, referring to a plan on veterans’ benefits. “Boehner made clear the G.O.P. would provide the requisite number of Republican votes for the measure but that Democrats will be expected to carry the vote.”

…Mr. Boehner explained the decision to go forward with a “clean” debt ceiling bill as a reflection of the political reality that he simply did not have enough Republican votes to pass anything more ambitious.

“It’s the fact that we don’t have 218 votes,” he said after meeting with House Republicans, “and when you don’t have 218 votes, you have nothing.” He added that he expected almost all of the House Democrats to vote to pass the bill, though he said he would still need to muster about 18 Republican votes to get the legislation over the finish line. “We’ll have to find them,” Mr. Boehner said. “I’ll be one.”

So whom did Boehner surrender to? That’s actually a little fuzzy. Democrats were willing to support his previous plan, which would have tied the debt limit increase to a restoration of full benefits for veterans, but it was the tea party that rebelled against that plan. So in a way, this was basically a surrender to the tea party.

In any case, that’s that. Boehner has decided (probably wisely) to take one for the team and get a bill passed so that Republicans can move on. In a way, this is the best choice he could have made. He gets the debt limit off the table, which is good for the party, since it means no more public debacles getting in the way of their election-year messages. At the same time, he’s allowing virtually the entire Republican caucus to vote against it, which is also good for the party, since it allows individual candidates to rail against it and attack big-spending Democrats. And who loses? No one, really. Boehner himself will take some flack as a sellout, but he’s been taking it anyway.

So will Eric Cantor and Paul Ryan vote for the debt ceiling increase? How about Kevin McCarthy, who will theoretically be the guy in charge of rounding up those 18 votes? Good question. Wait and see.

Link to original: 

Boehner Gives In, Introduces Clean Debt Ceiling Bill

Posted in ATTRA, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Boehner Gives In, Introduces Clean Debt Ceiling Bill