Tag Archives: venta

Welcome to the New Mother Jones

Mother Jones

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

Forty years ago, operating out of a dingy office above a McDonald’s on San Francisco’s Market Street, a group of writers and editors inspired by Watergate decided to launch the equivalent of a crowd-funded media startup—a spiffy-looking new magazine, devoted to investigative journalism and supported by its readers. From the very first day, Mother Jones has emphasized making in-depth journalism look good, because powerful storytelling shouldn’t feel like homework.

In keeping with that spirit, we’ve decided to celebrate our 40th anniversary with a new design. These days when a magazine overhauls its look, the process normally works something like this: A new editor or creative director walks in, decides whatever came before was crap, hires an outside design firm or three, commissions a custom typeface or maybe 10, gets a team of web designers and app developers to translate that vision to the digital space, and lines up some celebrity buzz, and many, many months later, voilà! A redesign is born.

We did pretty much the opposite. First, except for the inspirational input of Luke Shuman, who helped our brilliant creative director, Ivylise Simones, design our new logo, we did this all in-house. We did it with the resources at hand. We did it in a few all-too-short months, amid our already awesomely hectic jobs. And, though we are over the moon about the new look for both the magazine and the site you are now on, we reverse-engineered the typical process, beginning with article pages on our mobile site and working back up the food chain, as it were, to the home page of MotherJones.com and then on to the print magazine. We did it that way, in part, because for far too long these three “products” looked nothing like each other; they’d each grown uniquely fusty. And we did it that way because every month 9 million people read our journalism—multiple new stories each day—via their desktops, laptops, tablets, and phones.

We wanted to give those 9 million people a better experience; one that was clean, easier on the eyes. We ditched a lot of clutter. Buttons for bygone social networks and services were banished from the page. So were an overwhelming number of links on the home page. We even cut down on the number of ad units per page.

We also wanted to make it easier for you to find our one-of-a-kind coverage about food politics and science and our signature investigative deep-dives. Both now appear on our navigation bar at the top of each page.

A new home page feature, called Exposure, will give you a dose of our commitment to photojournalism (the stunning pictures in our feature on Flint’s toxic water crisis are an excellent example). And for signature stories, we’ll deploy a photographically lush wide format, which will look eye-popping on your laptop and your cellphone.

We are also obsessed with our new favorite color, orange. We’ve used it to make links and other text easier for you to spot. And we are thrilled to be using a new display font called Mallory, from the Frere-Jones Type studio, that, in the words of the designers, “was built to be a reliable tool, readily pairing with other typefaces to organize complex data and fine-tune visual identities.” Our body font is Calluna.

Okay, now back to the “investigative journalism” part. Like most in our trade, we do a lot of things these days. But at the core of what we do, and why you read Mother Jones, is the promise that we’ll rake the muck, that we’ll afflict the comfortable and, as our namesake put it, “fight like hell for the living.” Our dedication to investigative journalism ripped the lid off the Ford Pinto cover-up soon after the magazine launched in 1976, and we exposed Mitt Romney’s “47 percent” remarks during the last election—a story that, though it arguably altered the course of history, notably never took a spin through print.

Today, when a Pandora’s box full of vulgarity, obstructionism, and authoritarianism has been let loose upon the political landscape, when spin has tucked tail in the face of bald-faced lies, when people from every walk of life and every political persuasion feel like the deck has been stacked against them and the dealer is cutting cards to boot, the fight for justice is more important than ever.

We have your back and we hope you have ours. This publication—which might more properly be dubbed a nonprofit, digital-first news organization with a magazine’s secret sauce, if that weren’t such a mouthful—has always relied on reader support. It was readers who pitched in eight years ago when we wanted to expand past a six-times-a-year collection of freelance pieces to become what the PEN American Center recently called “an internationally recognized powerhouse” that often puts “more well-known and deep-pocketed news divisions to shame.” You built this.

We’ve tripled the size of the newsroom and grown our audience twenty­fold, but we’re not done yet. In the coming months we’ll unveil some truly blockbuster investigations as well as our ambitions to be far bigger and better still. We’ll be asking for your help and your input on how to get there. You can read why you should consider joining our community of sustainers here. Let’s fight the good fight, together.

Follow this link:

Welcome to the New Mother Jones

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Welcome to the New Mother Jones

Oxfam: Poultry Industry Routinely Denies Workers Bathroom Breaks

Mother Jones

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

The United States isn’t exactly a hotbed of trade unionism and worker power. But presumably, most people can take for granted access to the bathroom while on the job. Not so for people who staff the nation’s chicken slaughterhouses, according to a scathing new report from Oxfam America.

After a three-year project interviewing dozens of current and former workers across the country, Oxfam came to this stark conclusion:

Routinely, poultry workers say, they are denied breaks to use the bathroom. Supervisors mock their needs and ignore their requests; they threaten punishment or firing. Workers wait inordinately long times (an hour or more), then race to accomplish the task within a certain timeframe (e.g., ten minutes) or risk discipline.

How do they deal with this brutal state of affairs? “They urinate and defecate while standing on the line; they wear diapers to work; they restrict intake of liquids and fluids to dangerous degrees; they endure pain and discomfort while they worry about their health and job security,” the report adds.

Given that the industry produces what’s by far America’s favorite meat and employs more than 375,000 people, this might sound like a startling state of affairs that will inspire swift federal action. As the Oxfam report notes, “Denial of regular access to the bathroom is a clear violation of US workplace safety law.”

But Big Poultry’s bathroom trouble has been known for a while. For a 2013 report, the Southern Poverty Law Center surveyed Alabama poultry workers on the conditions they face. Findings included heightened levels of repetitive-motion injuries, routine cuts and gashes—and the lack of bathroom breaks. “Of the 266 workers answering questions about bathroom breaks, nearly eight in 10 (79 percent) said they are not allowed to take breaks when needed,” SPLC found. The group noted many of the same conditions flagged by Oxfam, including workers “stripping off their gear while running to the restroom,” on floors that are often “slippery with fat, blood, water, and other liquids.”

Also in 2013, SPLC attorney Tom Fritzsche delivered those findings in testimony before the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (part of the Organization of American States), noting (video here).

The Oxfam report, too, puts the speed of the modern industrial kill line—the maximum under US law IS 140 birds per minute—at the heart of the problem. “Supervisors deny requests to use the bathroom because they are under pressure to maintain the speed of the processing line, and to keep up production,” the report states. “Once a poultry plant roars to a start at the beginning of the day, it doesn’t stop until all the chickens are processed.”

To keep the line rolling and give workers breaks when they need them is possible, Oxfam found, but that requires resources: maintaining a “set of replacement workers (line assistants or floaters) who step in as needed.” Yet “in the course of hundreds of interviews, only a handful of workers reported that their bathroom needs are respected,” the report found. Interestingly, “These exceptions are primarily in plants that have unions, which offer important protections, inform workers of their rights, and ensure they have a voice on the job.”

For its part, the chicken industry says the claims made by Oxfam are exaggerated. “The health, safety and respect of our employees is very important, and we value their contributions in helping to produce our food,” the National Chicken Council claimed in an online statement. “We’re troubled by these claims but also question this group’s efforts to paint the whole industry with a broad brush based on a handful of anonymous claims. We believe such instances are extremely rare and that U.S. poultry companies work hard to prevent them.”

A number of companies are named in the report, including Perdue, the nation’s fourth-largest poultry company and the subject of my recent feature on the industry’s move away from reliance on antibiotics. “The anecdotes reported are not consistent with Perdue’s policies and practices,” the company states in a response to the Oxfam report. The company went on to describe its policy:

Regarding bathroom breaks, our associates receive two 30-minutes breaks during each eight-hour shift. They typically work 2 to 2½ hours, have a 30-minute break, work another 2 to 2½ hours and have another 30-minute break, then work the remainder of the shift. If an associate is unable to wait for the scheduled break and needs to use the restroom, they are to be given permission to leave the line as soon as someone can cover for them. If a department is short-staffed that day, there may be times it is difficult to provide immediate coverage.

Thus are the challenges of operating a kill line that requires workers to break down as many as 140 birds per minute. For years, the industry promoted a US Department of Agriculture proposal that would have allowed line speeds to go as high as 175 birds per minute. After a firestorm of criticism from worker-rights and food-safety groups, the USDA shelved that plan in 2014. But, Oxfam America’s Oliver Gottfried tells me, the USDA left the door open to allow it in the future—and Congressional Republicans have been itching ever since to make it so.

Original source: 

Oxfam: Poultry Industry Routinely Denies Workers Bathroom Breaks

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Oxfam: Poultry Industry Routinely Denies Workers Bathroom Breaks

Here’s Why I Give My Tomatoes Antacid Tablets

So I knowpill popping and vegetables don’t mix. But blossom end rot sucks. It just sucks.

One minute, you have perfectly healthy looking tomato plants with fruits ripening on the vine. The next minute, dark spots start appearing at the flower-end of the fruit. Before you know it, a black mark has spread like the plague and they start caving in on themselves and going mushy.

This has happened to me more times than I can count. And this year, I’m trying my hand at an odd preventative trick: Crushing up a few antacid tablets and putting them in the planting hole before I transplant my tomato starts.

You see blossom end rot is essentially a calcium deficiency, and several old-timey gardeners have sworn to me that antacid tabletswhich contain a good dose of calcium carbonatemay help blossom end rot from setting in. By strengthening the cell walls, the calcium helps create tougher, more resilient fruits where blossom end rot can’t set in.This blog postwould seem to agree, suggesting crushing up tablets, dissolving them and applying them with a sprayer every month to help keep on top of any problems.

That said, I have no idea whether this will work for me. Other authorities, includingthis video I wrote about back in 2011when I was still struggling with this problem, suggests that blossom end rot is less about a lack of calcium in the soil, and more a case of plants being unable to absorb enough calcium of the soiloften due to irregular levels of irrigation.

So, while I am hopeful that my antacid trick will serve as a good insurance policy, I am also pursuing a more time-tested trick:mulching the crap out of my gardento maintain consistent moisture levels.

And I am keeping my fingers crossed. Anyone else got any ideas?

Written by Sami Grover. Reposted with permission from TreeHugger.

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

Original article: 

Here’s Why I Give My Tomatoes Antacid Tablets

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Why I Give My Tomatoes Antacid Tablets

Uber Needs to Start Acting Like a Grownup

Mother Jones

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

Adam Ozimek is dismayed by progressive excitement over the regulation of Uber in the city of Austin:

There’s a lot of celebrating in some corners about Austin’s recent passage of a law mandating that ridesharing companies like Uber fingerprint their drivers….Amazingly, many aren’t trying very hard to hide the fact that they aren’t mostly concerned about whether this policy is a good idea!…I find this celebration a little puzzling given that we are just now beginning to exit the era where local taxi regulations were almost everywhere an embarrassing milieu of cronyism designed to protect politically powerful incumbents who offered shoddy service. The history of local taxi regulation should be an embarrassment, not a model we celebrate our inability to escape from.

….It’s very interesting how many erstwhile progressives have shown little concern for the rights of those who have been accused of a crime, and the disproportionate impact of a policy on minorities, in just this circumstance. Too excited by the prospect of local government regulating a rich tech company, there has been little time to consider these traditional progressive worries.

This might be true. And I certainly can’t speak for all progressives. But I’d offer a couple of counterpoints:

Municipal regulation of the taxi industry has indeed been an embarrassment, and to the extent that Uber fights it, they’re doing God’s work. At the same time, Uber has been almost thuggishly aggressive about defending its apparent belief that they should be immune from any regulation whatsoever. To hear them talk, they’re really nothing more than a database that provides a lookup service for car owners. What happens after that has nothing to do with them.

As a progressive, this attitude does bother me. Uber is a company that basically employs hundreds of thousands of drivers. The public has a right to expect them to act like the multi-billion company they are, and to treat both their employees and their customers within the confines of expected corporate norms. The Austin case may or may not be misguided, but as a fight to show Uber that they aren’t above the law, I can understand the enthusiasm.

In any case, I’m not sure the Austin case is misguided. The taxi regulations that Uber is justified in fighting are the ones that have turned the whole industry into little fiefdoms of cozy little cartels. However, the regulations demanding that taxis be safe and drivers be reliable are pretty good ones. Requiring Uber to keep ex-felons out of taxis may have some downsides, but it’s also got plenty of upsides. It’s certainly not a slam dunk that this is a bad idea.

Overall, I’m a fan of Uber. They provide a great service, and breaking up the taxi cartels is almost certainly a boon to Americans everywhere. At the same time, they’re not a startup anymore. They’re a multinational, multi-billion dollar corporation that needs to accept public oversight in the areas of employment law, safety regulation, and reasonable licensing. They don’t seem very willing to do this, and sometimes the public needs to fight back and win.

Continued here: 

Uber Needs to Start Acting Like a Grownup

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Uber Needs to Start Acting Like a Grownup

BinC Watch? What’s That Supposed to Mean, Anyway?

Mother Jones

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

Well, originally it meant Bullshitter-in-Chief. But this is a family site, so—

Actually, no, it’s not a family site. Still, endless repetitions of bullshit can put people off. So a reader suggested Buffoon-in-Chief. I kind of like that.

Or maybe Blowhard-in-Chief.

Or Blusterer-in-Chief?

Bigot-in-Chief?

Braggart-in-Chief?

It’s sort of remarkable how many B words describe Donald Trump pretty well. How did that happen?

Taken from: 

BinC Watch? What’s That Supposed to Mean, Anyway?

Posted in bigo, Bragg, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on BinC Watch? What’s That Supposed to Mean, Anyway?

Here’s Another Crazy Thing Texas Republicans Are Voting on Today

Mother Jones

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

Texas Republicans are convening today to cast their ballot on a number of matters close to the Lone Star state’s conservative heart. The most notable issue is whether or not to secede from the rest of the United States, as ardent nationalists in the party are hoping to do.

But buried in the long list of standard Republican agenda items includes the following gem, one that’s stereotypically reserved for members of the left wing:

Despite the unusual bipartisan paranoia, Republicans hoping to opt out of the government-backed meters are likely fresh out of luck: In 2014 the same proposal was overwhelmingly rejected by state lawmakers who were not persuaded that the technology was endangering the public.

Anyone in search for another issue with red and blue support should look no further than the aforementioned vote on Texas secession. As our own Josh Harkinson notes, that, too, has cheerleaders from both ends of the political spectrum.

Original source: 

Here’s Another Crazy Thing Texas Republicans Are Voting on Today

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here’s Another Crazy Thing Texas Republicans Are Voting on Today

Friday Cat Blogging – 13 May 2016

Mother Jones

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

Hopper has learned how to take selfies. It turns out that opposable thumbs are entirely unnecessary. All you have to do is jump up on Daddy’s lap while he’s reading on his tablet and tell him to take a picture. She looks pretty smug about the whole thing, doesn’t she?

See original article here: 

Friday Cat Blogging – 13 May 2016

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 13 May 2016

Three Sentences About the Cocoon

Mother Jones

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

Sentence #1: Drew Altman on whether people are satisfied or not with their Obamacare coverage:

In the Kaiser survey, which will be published next week, 29% of Republicans in marketplace plans (i.e., Obamacare) say they have benefited from the ACA compared with 75% of Democrats, a 46-point difference.

This is now so common that it makes top-line polling almost useless. How’s the economy doing? It depends on your party. Do you believe in climate change? It depends on your party. In unemployment up or down? It depends on your party. We’re accustomed to opinions about things like abortion depending on party ID, but more and more, views of objective reality depend on party ID too. Why?

Sentence #2: Ezra Klein on why Facebook is likely to become more biased, not less:

Before the web…it was possible to cocoon yourself inside an echo chamber, but you really had to work at it. Then came cable news…. Constructing an echo chamber became easier….But now we have personalized search results, handcrafted Twitter feeds, and a Facebook algorithm based on likes. Now you can end up in an echo chamber without even knowing it.

Aha. The cocoon. This is why the objective state of the world depends so much on party ID. If you watch Fox News and read the Drudge Report, you get exposed to more than just different spins compared to people who listen to NPR and read Mother Jones. You get exposed to an entirely different set of stories. Conservatives and liberals these days are increasingly exercised by issues that their opposites barely even know exist.

Sentence #3: Todd VanDerWerff on the ultimate hollowness of the latest George Clooney vehicle, Money Monster:

Hollywood used to excel at telling stories of people who lived and worked in the lower classes….Whether it was The Grapes of Wrath or Raging Bull, filmmakers used to treat the concerns and hopes of the working class as worthy of consideration. That happens less and less now.

The cocoon again! Back in the day, plenty of screenwriters and film directors came from working-class backgrounds. Today they all have degrees from the USC film school and live in Silver Lake. They get their news from Variety and the LA Times, not drive-time radio and People. In this cocoon, the working class is something to make money from via transparently condescending TV shows, not real people with real problems.

Years ago, I used to think that everyone who did the kind of thing I do—blather about public policy from the perch of an upper-middle-class existence—should read the National Enquirer weekly to get a better sense of what kinds of news shaped the views of ordinary people. I don’t think the Enquirer fills that bill anymore, but what does? The media-verse is so fragmented these days that I’m not sure there’s any single outlet you can count on anymore. Suggestions?

Read article here: 

Three Sentences About the Cocoon

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Three Sentences About the Cocoon

Donald Trump Denies "Masquerading" as His Own Spokesman

Mother Jones

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

Donald Trump is shooting down a report by the Washington Post that claims the real estate magnate and presidential hopeful used to call members of the press pretending to be his own spokesman. According to the Post, he used the pseudonyms John Miller and John Barron—two names Trump admitted under oath in 1990 to using “on occasion.”

Speaking on the Today Show on Friday, Trump dismissed the allegations as a “scam,” saying the voice captured in the phone call recording did not resemble his own.

“You’re telling me about it for the first time, and it doesn’t sound like my voice at all,” Trump said. “I have many, many people that are trying to imitate my voice, you can imagine that. This sounds like one of the scams, one of the many scams.”

Earlier on Friday, the Post published audio from a 1991 phone call reportedly recorded by People magazine reporter Sue Carswell. In the audio, Carswell can be heard talking to a man who introduced himself as John Miller but sounds very much like Trump. The report goes on to cite other journalists who recalled a John Miller or John Barron contacting them, sometimes as far back as the 1970s, through similar guises to promote Trump with flattering stories.

To hear the recording in its entirety, head to the Washington Post.

From: 

Donald Trump Denies "Masquerading" as His Own Spokesman

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Donald Trump Denies "Masquerading" as His Own Spokesman

Ask an Economist: Are Living Standards Higher Than They Used to Be?

Mother Jones

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

So how are we doing these days? Let’s ask some economists. Their consensus, apparently, is that we’re way better off compared to the golden days of our youth, but not so much compared to more recent years. In fact, economists are split about evenly on whether we’re collectively better off than we were before the financial crash, which seems right to me. Roughly speaking, I’d say we’ve recovered to about 2007 levels, but haven’t yet surpassed them.

But this raises a question: Why do so many Americans think they were better off 30 or 40 or 50 years ago? There are several obvious possibilities:

Wages were rising back then. They may be higher now, but it’s steady increases that make things seem great.
Sure, we lacked cell phones and 500 channels and cancer cures back in the day, but we didn’t miss them because we never had them. The fact that we have them now doesn’t really make people think they’re better off.
On a related note, all the new stuff we have doesn’t really make us happier. If we grew up with it, it’s background noise. If we didn’t grow up with it, it’s just a complicated pain in the butt that we’re forced to keep up with even though we don’t really like it much. (Except for those 500 channels, of course. Everyone loves those.)
It’s basically cultural, not economic. A lot of people really were happier 50 years ago, but it had nothing to do with living standards. Whites didn’t have to compete with blacks or Asians. Men ruled the roost. Everyone knew their place. We didn’t worry about heroin epidemics. Etc.

It’s a funny thing about living standards. Take cars. They’re way better on practically every metric you can think of compared to, say, 1960. Cars today are faster, more reliable, more comfortable, more convenient, quieter, smoother, safer, and cheaper. And they come in way more varieties than they used to.

But do people like their cars today more than they did in the 60s? Probably not. We’ve gotten jaded. Cars were still kind of cool to the postwar generation. Today nearly everyone has a car and they’re just another possession. Our automobile living standard is far higher than it used to be, but our automobile happiness probably isn’t.

This article is from:

Ask an Economist: Are Living Standards Higher Than They Used to Be?

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Pines, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Ask an Economist: Are Living Standards Higher Than They Used to Be?