Tag Archives: would

WeWork kicks meat to the curb in the name of climate change

by RoseCableflsy Posted on July 13, 2018

WeWork announced a company-wide meat ban on Thursday: Poultry, pork, and red meat are officially no longer on the menu at WeWork events. And employees can’t charge meals that contain meat to the company card, either. That’s because the coworking Goliath seems to be moderately concerned that the human race is hurtling toward ecological collapse.

Like it or not, eliminating meat and dairy from your diet is probably the No. 1 thing you can do for the planet. Cutting out plastic straws? Sea turtles the world ’round appreciate it, but in terms of addressing climate change on a planetary scale, it doesn’t cut the mustard. That’s why the folks here at Grist dot org didn’t throw a party when Starbucks made plans to ditch straws and replace them with … plastic sippy cup lids. Perhaps it should take some inspiration from WeWork?

The company’s cofounder dropped the meat ban announcement on his employees in a memo. WeWork, valued at $20 billion, serves 253,000 members across the globe, and none of them will be nibbling on pigs-in-a-blanket on company premises anymore — unless they bring them from home, I guess.

The new meat ban will do the following by 2023, according to the company’s estimates:

Save 16.6 billion gallons of water
Prevent 445.1 million pounds of CO2 from entering the atmosphere
Spare the lives of more than 15,000,000 animals

While WeWork’s meat-free commitment is no doubt the most environmentally impactful step it’s taking, the company is also working to reduce its energy consumption by installing LED lights, automatic light switches, and a “global energy consumption dashboard,” something it hopes will help employees keep track of energy usage. It’s also working to reduce construction waste, increase the density of its real estate, and minimize additional construction. The company says its spaces are already 2.5 times more efficient than a typical office.

That’s pretty impressive! And to those of you who say you can’t give up meat, I ask you: Would you rather drink from a plastic sippy cup like a giant baby, or forgo the chicken skewers at your next company picnic like a well-adjusted grownup? The choice is yours. Unless you’re at WeWork, because your bosses already decided for you.

See the article here:

WeWork kicks meat to the curb in the name of climate change

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on WeWork kicks meat to the curb in the name of climate change

Conservatives Demand End to Pre-Existing Conditions Ban

by VilmaHerrmann Posted on March 23, 2017

Mother Jones

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

I guess I was wrong last night. The New York Times says President Trump has caved in to demands to repeal the minimum set of required benefits for health care insurance:

President Trump agreed to the demands of conservative House Republicans to remove federal requirements that health insurance plans provide a basic set of benefits like maternity care, emergency services, mental health and wellness visits as he struggles to round up enough votes to pass a broad health care overhaul.

But the Washington Post reports that this still wasn’t enough:

Conservative House Republicans rebuffed an offer by President Trump on Thursday to strip a key set of mandates from the nation’s current health-care law, raising doubts about whether House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) has the votes to pass the bill.

….Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), asked whether the White House had made its final negotiating offer, said that if that’s the case, “They’re not going to pass the bill.”…As of mid-afternoon Thursday, 37 House Republicans — mainly Freedom Caucus members — had announced their opposition to the bill, known as the American Health Care Act.

So what do conservatives want? Here’s the Post again:

Conservative lawmakers have asked to eliminate much of Obamacare’s Title I, which….bars companies from setting insurance rates based on a person’s sex, medical condition, genetic condition or other factors.

In other words, insurers could charge you more if you have a pre-existing condition. That would effectively kill off the Obamacare provision that requires insurers to cover everyone who applies. They’d simply price policies out of reach for people with expensive pre-existing conditions and that would be that.

Would this pass muster with the Senate parliamentarian, who has to agree that repealing Title 1 “directly affects” the budget? I doubt it. Would Mike Pence go ahead and overrule her? Maybe. Is this whole thing a debacle beyond imagining? Oh yes.

POSTSCRIPT: It’s worth pointing out that if Republicans go down this road, they’ve essentially killed the filibuster completely. Basically, they would have set a precedent that anything can be added to a reconciliation bill—which can’t be filibustered—and the vice president will overrule the parliamentarian and declare that it’s OK. At that point, the Senate can include reconciliation instructions for just about anything in its annual budget resolution. As long as the president and vice president are from the same party, they can then pass anything they want with 51 votes.

View original:  

Conservatives Demand End to Pre-Existing Conditions Ban

Posted in Everyone, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Conservatives Demand End to Pre-Existing Conditions Ban

Gossip of the Day: What’s the Deal With KT McFarland?

by FelipaCajigas6 Posted on February 18, 2017

Mother Jones

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

It’s a weekend. How about some gossip?

Apparently David Petraeus has withdrawn his name for consideration over the same issue as Robert Harward. He wants control over NSC personnel, but Trump refuses to give up McFarland as deputy. Given the fact that McFarland hasn’t held a government post in over 30 years and is wildly unqualified to be the #2 person on the National Security Council, there must be some strangely tight bond to account for Trump keeping her even though it’s preventing him from appointing his preferred candidates to the #1 spot.

OTOH, we also know that Trump doesn’t like John Bolton’s walrus mustache. Would he demand that Bolton shave it off as a requirement of the job?

Continue at source:  

Gossip of the Day: What’s the Deal With KT McFarland?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Gossip of the Day: What’s the Deal With KT McFarland?

Friday Cat Blogging – 9 December 2016

by DavidChapa50370 Posted on December 9, 2016

Mother Jones

For years we’ve had a regular feline visitor to our house. However, a few days ago, for the first time I can remember, he visited during daylight hours. This caused considerable alarm, and in the ensuing dustup both of our cats somehow ended up on the roof. I’m not quite sure how or why, but after it was all over they roamed around for a while and then settled down on the patio cover. As you can see, Hilbert is keeping a watchful eye out for any further invasions of his territory.

Speaking of territory, the Downing Street mouse problem has still not been solved. So now, in addition to Larry, Palmerston, and Gladstone, the staff has added a mother and son pair of cats, Evie and Ossie. We now have an army of five cats on Downing Street patrol. Would you like to see them and hear about all the inside dirt? (Turf wars! Dog terrorizing! Tarantulas!) This is the kind of thing for which tabloids are really and truly your best source. Forget the Guardian. I recommend the Sun or the Mirror for this story.

Link: 

Friday Cat Blogging – 9 December 2016

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 9 December 2016

Where’s the Idealism?

by LouellaBenjamin Posted on May 19, 2016

Mother Jones

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

It’s a funny thing: the usual take on Bernie Sanders supporters is that they’re a bunch of idealistic college kids who want a revolution. But whenever I write a post critical of Bernie, I sure don’t seem to get much criticism from the smart set. Here’s a random baker’s dozen tweets responding to my post from last night:

I know you can’t draw any conclusions from the cesspool of social media. And I’m not a woman, so I escape the worst of this stuff. Still, this is the kind of barely literate nitwittery that I get from the tea party types when I write about Benghazi or the IRS. Full of passion, for sure, but not a whole lot of idealism. Just rage and lame middle-school insults.

Would I get the same quality of stuff from Hillary supporters if I wrote something negative about her? In the past I haven’t, but my criticisms of Hillary have been more targeted. Plus she’s winning, and that makes it a lot easier to let criticism wash off your back.

I dunno. I suppose the lesson is not to draw any lessons from Twitter (though my inbox looked pretty similar this morning). But I’ll draw a lesson anyway: We’re no angrier than we’ve ever been, but social media sure does make it a lot easier to express our rage publicly. In the past all we could do was yell at the TV in the privacy of our own living rooms. All things considered, this probably isn’t such a positive change.

Originally posted here:

Where’s the Idealism?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Where’s the Idealism?

The Moment When Carly Fiorina Completely Owned Donald Trump

by JanessaBreton15 Posted on September 17, 2015

Mother Jones

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

In one of the GOP primary debate’s most memorable moments, Carly Fiorina put Donald Trump in his place for his comments, in a recent Rolling Stone article, criticizing her looks as he argued why she could never be president. “Look at that face! Would anyone vote for that?” Trump told the magazine. “Can you imagine that, the face of our next president?!”

The debate exchange came after Trump doubled down on his criticism of Jeb Bush for remarking last month that “I’m not sure we need half a billion dollars for women’s health programs.”

“I think it will haunt him,” Trump said during the debate. “I think it’s a terrible. I think it’s going to haunt him absolutely. He came back later and he said he misspoke. There was no question because I heard when he said the statement. I was watching and he said the statement.”

When moderator Jake Tapper then asked Carly Fiorina for her thoughts about Trump’s recent remarks, she turned the tables on The Donald. “You know, it’s interesting to me,” Fiorina said. “Mr. Trump said that he heard Mr. Bush very clearly in what Mr. Bush said. I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”

The typically bombastic Trump responded sheepishly: “I think she’s got a beautiful face and I think she’s a beautiful woman.”

See original article – 

The Moment When Carly Fiorina Completely Owned Donald Trump

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Moment When Carly Fiorina Completely Owned Donald Trump

Do Your State’s Hospitals Serve Big Macs?

by MarcelSievwrigh Posted on April 6, 2015

Mother Jones

Would you like fries with your hospital stay? If so, you’re in luck: Many hospitals house fast-food restaurants. Some even offer delivery to patient rooms. The Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) isn’t wild about this phenomenon and made this map, which shows the US hospitals with fast-food chains inside them:

Image by Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine

Of the 208 hospitals—most of them public—that PCRM investigated in its report, 43 had fast-food chains inside, mostly McDonald’s, Wendy’s, and Chick-Fil-A. PCRM staff dietitian Cameron Wells told me that some of the fast-food joints have contracts that require them to give a certain percentage of their profits to their hospitals, “meaning the more unhealthful food the restaurant sells to patients and their families, the richer the hospital gets,” she said.

Six of the fast-food-serving facilities in the report were children’s hospitals. One of those, Children’s Hospital of Georgia, offers delivery service from McDonald’s straight to patients’ beds. “Seeing this in a children’s hospital—that’s the most vulnerable population,” Wells says. “Fast food is not going to help children get better.”

See the original post:

Do Your State’s Hospitals Serve Big Macs?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, organic, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Do Your State’s Hospitals Serve Big Macs?

How Big a Deal Would It Be If Red States Lost Their Obamacare Subsidies?

by DevonMarden Posted on February 19, 2015

Mother Jones

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

What happens if the Supreme Court somehow persuades itself that Obamacare subsidies shouldn’t be available to people in states that rely on the federal exchange? Answer: in the red states that have refused to operate their own exchanges, lots of people would lose their subsidies—and most likely lose their health insurance too, since they could no longer afford it.

We already know that most red-state governors don’t care about that. After all, if they did care they’d accept Obamacare’s Medicaid expansion, which would provide health care to millions of their residents. So Greg Sargent takes a different tack today. What would it mean to state economies if their subsidies go away? Sargent’s rough calculations are on the right. Florida, for example, would lose about $5 billion per year, which would be a hit to its economy. Would that be likely to convince its governor to start up a state exchange so that subsidies would keep flowing?

Sadly no. Florida has a state GDP of about $750 billion. The loss of $5 billion would represent about half a percent of the state’s economy. That’s not nothing, but it’s close. And it’s certainly not enough to make up for the opprobrium of being thought soft on Obamacare.

So….nice try. But I think we’re pretty much where we’ve always been: it’s going to be yelling and screaming from constituents and lobbyists that eventually gets red-state governors (and legislatures) to accept any part of Obamacare that they have a choice about. It’s anyone’s guess when that yelling will finally get loud enough.

Visit link: 

How Big a Deal Would It Be If Red States Lost Their Obamacare Subsidies?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, Mop, ONA, oven, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Big a Deal Would It Be If Red States Lost Their Obamacare Subsidies?

If It Weren’t For the Dashcam, Would This White Cop Be Punished for Shooting An Unarmed Black Man?

by Sasha3995imvf Posted on September 25, 2014

Mother Jones

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

A white South Carolina state trooper is facing up to 20 years in prison after shooting an unarmed black man who was attempting to grab his driver’s license during a simple seatbelt check.

The disturbing incident occurred on September 4 and was caught on video thanks to a dashcam attached to officer Sean Groubert’s vehicle.

In the graphic video, Groubert is seen approaching Levar Jones at a local gas station, where he asks Jones to retrieve his driver’s license.

Jones reaches into the car and Groubert suddenly opens fire, shooting him not once, but four times, as Jones puts his hands in the air and falls to the pavement.

“Get on the ground! Get on the ground!”

“I was doing what you told me to do,” Jones can be heard saying. “I was getting my license!’

Jones survived with wounds to the hip. Groubert was arrested Wednesday and charged with aggravated assault.

The latest shooting, which follows mounting evidence police officers shoot black people at a higher rate than white people, comes as police departments around the country face increased pressure to outfit officers with recording technology such as dashcams and bodycams.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, at least 60 percent of local police departments use dashcams. This latest incident will surely add to those calls for accountability. As Josh Marshall at TPM asks, “Would Groubert have lost his badge and be facing charges had there not been a dashcam video revealing the reality of what happened?” A justified question, considering law enforcement officials are rarely sentenced or convicted in such shootings.

For a more detailed look into racially motivated shootings by police, click here.

See the original article here: 

If It Weren’t For the Dashcam, Would This White Cop Be Punished for Shooting An Unarmed Black Man?

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on If It Weren’t For the Dashcam, Would This White Cop Be Punished for Shooting An Unarmed Black Man?

Republicans Hate Obama, Therefore Obama Should Avoid Making Them Even Madder

by Georgia3464 Posted on August 7, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Ron Fournier ponders the wisdom of President Obama issuing executive orders on immigration and tax inversions:

For argument’s sake, let’s say Obama is right on the issue and has legal authority to act. The big question is …

Would it be wrong to end-run Congress? Another way to put it might be, “Would more polarization in Washington and throughout the country be wrong?” How about exponentially more polarization, gridlock, and incivility? If the president goes too far, he owns that disaster.

Wait a second. If you think Obama is wrong on the merits, then naturally you’ll oppose any new executive action. If you think he’s right, but unfortunately lacks the constitutional authority to do anything about it, you’ll also oppose any new executive action.

But what if he’s both right and has the proper authority? That certainly sounds like the right formula for supporting executive action. But no. Obama still shouldn’t do anything because….wait for it….it would cause more polarization, gridlock, and incivility.

I frankly doubt it, but leave that to one side for the moment. What Fournier is saying is that President Obama shouldn’t do anything that might make Republicans mad. But this means the president is literally helpless: No proposal of his has any chance of securing serious Republican engagement in Congress, but he’s not allowed to take executive action for fear of making them even more intransigent. Obama’s only legitimate option, apparently, is to persuade Republicans to support his proposals, even though it’s no secret that Republicans decided years ago to obstruct everything, sight unseen, that was on Obama’s agenda. So that leaves Obama with no options at all.

And that means the next column will be all about Obama’s lack of leadership. Count on it.

Link: 

Republicans Hate Obama, Therefore Obama Should Avoid Making Them Even Madder

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Republicans Hate Obama, Therefore Obama Should Avoid Making Them Even Madder