We blew through our 50K goal so we’ve upped it to 75K.
And when you ask them how much should we givePost + Comments (11)
by DougJ| 11 Comments
This post is in: C.R.E.A.M.
We blew through our 50K goal so we’ve upped it to 75K.
And when you ask them how much should we givePost + Comments (11)
by Hillary Rettig| 68 Comments
This post is in: Climate Change, Vegan
I’m just gonna leave these here:
1) Here’s a Democracy Now discussion of how TV networks promote climate change denial by routinely omitting mention of climate change when covering extreme weather events like Hurricane Matthew, despite the fact that climate change is widely regarded as causing / exacerbating said events. (Also, by not asking a single friggin’ question about climate change during either of the presidential debates, or the vice presidential one.)
2) Haiti’s death toll: 1,000+. (“Cholera rampant.”) Many more to come, not just due to disease, but probable widespread starvation due to crop destruction. (Also, 17 reported deaths in the U.S.) Also undoubtedly lost were countless farmed animals, companion animals, and wild animals.
3) Colombia: unexpected defeat of landmark peace initiative due in part to depressed voter turnout due to Hurricane Matthew makes continued violence probable. (Also, Haiti’s presidential election indefinitely postponed.)
Climate change silence = death. If we don’t talk about it, we’re probably not going to act on it, and more people and animals will die. Unfortunately, many people get their climate-related news primarily from TV meteorologists, many of whom, due to ignorance [this too], arrogance [the first link again], and careerism, have abdicated their professional responsibilities and let us all down.
Every newscast should have a segment on climate change (and obviously not a denier one), and also every report on extreme weather conditions. And climate change should also be discussed in the context of agriculture, tourism, sports, and other weather-dependent activities. And OF COURSE it should be discussed by every political candidate, and not just in passing.
All with the goal of increasing everyone’s awareness and understanding of the problem, and motivation to address it.
The meteorologists’ abdication just increases the burden for the rest of us. So please: do your bit to help get the word out. Telling your local news station you want more climate change coverage would be a great start.
Some links:
*To help Haiti do NOT donate to the Red Cross, which was revealed to be grossly ineffective at best in this ProPublica report entitled, “How the Red Cross Raised Half a Billion Dollars for Haiti and Built Six Homes.” Instead, donate to Partners in Health (Dr. Paul Farmer’s org), which gets high marks from GiveWell and other charity monitors.
And donate to the Humane Society to help Haiti’s animals.
Please list other vetted suggestions for donations in the comments.
*For more info on climate change politics and economics, read Naomi Klein’s brilliant This Changes Everything.
*Oxford scientists say veggie diets could save up to 8 million lives by 2050 due to climate and public health gains. (Not including the animal lives!) “It could also avoid climate-related damages of $1.5 trillion (US).”
And, finally,
*Support climate activists, with funds, kind words, letters to the editor, etc. Here are some that are kicking ass.
EDIT: Cermet points out: “AGW is also at the heart of the terrible drought that has devastated Syria (major cause of its civil war) and much of that area of the world – see Iran’s eight year drought.”
And per Brachiator: “Also recommend Three Angels. The spouse of a local radio personality works for this organization and flew back home just ahead of the hurricane. They do good work, and are close to the ground. They employ local people instead of dropping down as “the experts” on local conditions.”
by Betty Cracker| 199 Comments
This post is in: Politics, Assholes, General Stupidity, Security Theatre
Very little pick-up by the dishonest media of incredible information provided by WikiLeaks. So dishonest! Rigged system!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 12, 2016
As usual, Trump is full of shit: There has been extensive media coverage of the mostly innocuous cache of purloined emails in the mainstream media, though it has been overshadowed by PussyGate. Gee, I wonder why the media is focusing on PussyGate instead of emails that portray a political organization engaged in political strategerizing? Maybe a genius TV impresario like Donald J. Trump can solve that mystery.
Meanwhile, Balloon Juice favorite Glenn Greenwald has published another screed denouncing objections to the “inconvenient truths” published by WikiLeaks as neo-red baiting. He accused Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald of being “hysterical,” “overwrought” and engaging in “righteous group-think” (and Greenwald should know from these qualities!) for doubting WikiLeaks’ objectivity and lauds WikiLeaks’ “perfect, long-standing record of only publishing authentic documents.”
Look, I’m not a security expert, but those who are have concluded that the DNC hack was the work of Russian operatives, and the Department of Homeland Security has formally accused the Russian government of engaging in ongoing efforts to tamper with our election. Seems pretty clear that the Russians are the source of the documents WikiLeaks published, unless you believe in a Documents Fairy.
As far as I’m aware, there’s no conclusive evidence that the documents published on WikiLeaks have been edited. But Greenwald’s attempt to hand-wave away that possibility rings false; that the principals have confirmed via commentary and actions that certain excerpts are genuine isn’t a blanket confirmation that the many thousands of released emails are all genuine. And WikiLeaks has been accused of selective publication of documents before.
Moreover, even if you believe WikiLeaks is as pure as the driven snow, skepticism about the documents’ authenticity is warranted since altering documents fits the Russian MO when attempting to interfere with other countries’ elections (ours too, BTW). Isn’t it entirely possible and in character for Russian operatives to alter the documents before giving them to sweet, innocent WikiLeaks for publication, as was allegedly done in the Russian-Syrian document dump published by WikiLeaks linked above? Why would WikiLeaks be uniquely immune to the old “garbage in-garbage out” axiom — the credibility of Assange? Please.
The circumstantial evidence that Assange has his thumb on the scale for Trump is pretty goddamn strong, including the timing of the releases, which just so happen to come at the worst possible time for Democrats (as the DNC gets underway) or when Trump most desperately needs an anti-Clinton media distraction (to supply “both sides” fodder to balance PussyGate).
If WikiLeaks ever was an organization with a noble agenda of “radical transparency,” it has since shrunk into the pet project of an alleged rapist who has been sleeping on an air mattress for several years in an embassy as the guest of a government with a history of repressing real journalists.
We’re supposed to uncritically trust that guy, who credulously retweets Jim “The Stupidest Man on the Internet” Hoft and Breitbart.com using the WikiLeaks Twitter account? We’re supposed to believe the former host of a Russia Today show has no pro-Putin / anti-Clinton bias? A collaborator with the odious Roger Stone who is on record expressing a preference for Trump over Clinton and whose every action during this campaign just so happens to dovetail with the interests of the Trump operation?
Fuck that. The National Enquirer was right about John Edwards, but that doesn’t make its current story on “What The Stars Really Weigh” credible. WikiLeaks has morphed into yet another Trump vendor — one that will likely get stiffed when this bullshit campaign is over, suffering the fate of thousands of other organizations that service Trump.
That is the fault of no one but its principal. And anyone who continues to regard Assange as a credible actor is likely to wind up looking like a fool.
This post is in: Election 2016, Republican Stupidity, Clown Shoes
Two big-money donors who have given or raised tens of thousands of dollars for Donald Trump are livid at the Republican presidential nominee and are asking for their money back, according to a bundler who raised money for Trump.
“I cannot express my disappointment enough regarding the recent events surrounding Mr. Trump,” one donor wrote to a Trump fundraiser in an email with the subject line “Trump support withdrawal.”
“I regret coming to the Trump support event, and in particular allowing my son to be a part of it,” the donor, who had given to and raised money for Trump, said. “I respectfully request that my money be refunded.”
***A second donor also requested his money be returned because he is “mortified” over the leaked videotape, according to another email obtained by NBC News.
“I can not (sic) support a sexist man. I have three young children and will not support a crude sexist man,” the second donor wrote. “I expect a refund of my donation. Please process immediately and I thank you for your help.”
How were they supposed to know?
That was August 2015.
by Sarah, Proud and Tall| 50 Comments
This post is in: Music, Open Threads
1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
2 God looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, that did seek God.
3 Every one of them is gone back: they are altogether become filthy; there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
4 Have the workers of iniquity no knowledge? who eat up my people as they eat bread: they have not called upon God.
5 There were they in great fear, where no fear was: for God hath scattered the bones of him that encampeth against thee: thou hast put them to shame, because God hath despised them.
6 Oh that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When God bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad.
ETA: Bugger. My YouTube embed is not working. Video to follow. Amuse yourself at my expense.
EATA: I think I broke the internets.
I may just be very drunk.
EOATA: Shorter: Drunk fictional old lady likes a piece of music and makes an ass of herself. Normal day really.
I can’t remember who pointed to this in the comments, but thank you, and pipe up if you’d like a hat tip.
by David Anderson| 24 Comments
This post is in: Anderson On Health Insurance
The New England Journal of Medicine has a pretty cool graph of how the uninsurance rate has changed by age and by year:
#HealthPolicy Data Watch: Uninsured Rate by Age https://t.co/iEodXLvlx9 pic.twitter.com/897C4k9j1q
— NEJM (@NEJM) October 12, 2016
What are some of the big drivers of this?
65+ is easy. People automatically qualify for either Medicare or Medicare Advantage. There is massive uptake as it is massively (and rightly) subsidized with significant late enrollment penalties.
Kids are pretty easy too. The first source of coverage for kids is employer sponsored insurance if one of their parents or guardians has it through work. But there is a comprehensive safety net in place. The CHIP program is awesome and it provides very good insurance to kids whose parents and guardians in the lower and middle middle class. Most states’ legacy Medicaid programs also covered kids up to the point where they qualified for either fully subsidized or mostly subsidized CHIP coverage. Medicaid usually covers between a third and half of all births in the states. There are a number of programs that create a reasonably effective if not particulary efficient wrap-around health care system for kids.
And then we get to the interesting area. Working age adults. Uninsurance rate decreases by age. This makes sense for three reasons. First, the primary source of coverage for working age adults is insurance through work. Low wage work and intermittent work is far less likely to offer insurance than medium or high wage steady work. Wages tend to increase as people age into middle age so the odds that a particular job with health insurance is filled by a 21 year old is significantly less than the odds it is filled by a 39 year old.
Secondly, a fall back system for older Americans is the disability system. People are more likely to either get on Medicaid for specific disease conditions or long term Medicare disability because incapacitating conditions are more likely to strike older people than younger people. There are 22 year olds on Medicaid for chronic conditions but they are swamped by 58 year olds.
Finally, motivation if a factor. A 62 year old is far more motivated to get insurance as they know that their hip is a bit rickety, that cancer runs in their family, that their breathing is a bit rough. A 22 year old in the prime of their life is far less likely to care as the relative risk of anything short of getting hit by a bus or suffering the consequences after saying “Dude, hold my beer and watch this” are very low. This calculation changes for young women due to pregnancy risk but it is similar.
As a side note, we should see the little jump at age 27 in uninsurance rates. That is the ACA at play there as people are moving off their parents’ insurance to uninsured.
by David Anderson| 184 Comments
This post is in: Election 2016, Hail to the Hairpiece, Hillary Clinton 2016, All we want is life beyond the thunderdome
Just another update from North Carolina’s early voting from INSIGHT US:
Democratic and non-affiliated voters are returning their ballots at a rate above 2012. Registered Republicans are not returning their ballots. Even if every incremental independent vote is actually a disgusted Republican vote, the lean GOP vote share for this phase is running 45% behind.
both Dems and independents have posted modest upticks relative to 2012 (107% and 106%, respectively), Republicans are voting at just 55% of their 2012 numbers. And this ‘Trump slump’ fully accounts for the overall decline in ABM voting so far….
Other North Carolina poll-watchers, including HuffPo, CNN, and the New York Times, have already reported that applications for ABM ballots by Republicans are down substantially this year in North Carolina (by 27%, according to the Times). As we show here, Tar Heel state Republicans are lagging even worse in terms of actually voting their ballots.
And yes, it is not all roses. Early voting in Iowa is crashing harder for Dems than it is for Republicans but 15 is greater than 6.
Time to finish the job.