Policy

Even while the world suffers, investing in science is non-negotiable

esiegel — Thu, 26 Oct 2017 05:01:10 +0000

Even while the world suffers, investing in science is non-negotiable

“I am looking at the future with concern, but with good hope.” –Albert Schweitzer

Every so often, the argument comes up that science is expendable. That we’re simply investing too much of our resources — too much public money — into an endeavor with no short-term benefits. Meanwhile, there’s suffering of all kinds, from poverty to disease to war to natural disasters, plaguing humanity all across the country and our world. Yet even while there is suffering in the world, investing in our long-term future is indispensable. This story is nothing new.

To invest in any one thing means to not invest in something else, but both science/space exploration and humanitarian relief are worthy of the investment of human resources. Image credit: NASA and WFP / Q. Sakamaki.

Back in 1970, shortly after the first Moon landing, a nun working to alleviate poverty in Africa, Sister Mary Jucunda, wrote to NASA, and begged them to stop this frivolous waste of resources, and instead to use their funding for the benefit of humanity. The letter made it all the way to Ernst Stuhlinger, then the Associate Director of Science at NASA. Stuhlinger’s response was all at once compassionate and convincing, and helped convince Jucunda — as well as skeptics everywhere — of the value that science has to offer.

The first view with human eyes of the Earth rising over the limb of the Moon. This was perhaps the greatest moment in education / public outreach for NASA until the first moon landing, and it was the picture that Stuhlinger sent to Sister Jucunda with the above letter. Image credit: NASA / Apollo 8.

Come see the full story, and read Stuhlinger’s complete, original letter, on the non-negotiable value of science to our world!

esiegel Thu, 10/26/2017 - 01:01

Tags

Astronomy

right and wrong

Categories

Policy

Yes, yes, you're so indispensable, however did we survive before the Ministry of Silly Wal-, er, I mean government funded science came along saved us from certain doom.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iV2ViNJFZC8&index=27&list=RDaOqHNNmTz68
.

Typed CFT on his computer connected to the internet.

I wonder with whom these planned non-negotiations won't be.

@Mike #2,

.
Ethan is espousing scientific rent seeking. I'm mostly against it. It almost always has a tendency to mission creep towards 'Silly Walks' research and groupthink. There was a good reason Monty Python made fun of this kind of thing.
.

@John #3,
The question is:
"I wonder with whom these planned non-negotiations won't be?"
.
The answer is: The people they are taking the money from to fund their science projects. Ethan is supporting the elitist technocratic position that the people who pay for this shouldn't be able to say no-thank you.
I seriously beg to differ.

Hey, CFT, have you ever noticed that pretty much everybody else can make paragraph breaks without inserting a period between them?

@CFT
Unsupported assertion coupled with irony blindness. Are you from the US by any chance?

@Narad #6,
If you were asking as a serious question,
For whatever reason, If I don't insert one, there is no space between paragraphs. It looks fine when I type it, but the spacing goes away when it posts.
If you were just being a pill,
meh.

@mike #7,
With bigoted comments like that, I sincerely hope you aren't.

It's October. What's Congress doing about healthcare?

lborkowski — Wed, 04 Oct 2017 17:53:31 +0000

It's October. What's Congress doing about healthcare?

We made it to October without letting Congressional Republicans ravage our healthcare system, so that's a relief. However, the fact that it's October also means funding for the Children's Health Insurance Program and federally qualified health centers has expired ... and Congress has been putting so much energy into trying to gut Medicaid and further restricting women's access to abortions that they neglected to renew funding for these two immensely popular bipartisan programs.

Instead of funding these programs because they're crucial sources of coverage and care for large portions of our population, House Republicans are trying to use them as leverage to weaken other aspects of public health. Vox's Dylan Scott reports:

Republicans want to pay for CHIP and health center funding by cutting Obamacare and cutting entitlement spending.

The House GOP plan would:

Cut Obamacare's public health fund by $6.4 billion over 10 years
Cut the grace period for Obamacare enrollees who fail to make premium payments. Under current law, enrollees can miss three months of payments without losing their coverage. The House bill would shorten that grace period to one month or allow states to set their own.
Repeal Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board, the controversial panel created by the law tasked with reducing Medicare's costs if the program's spending grows at too fast a rate.
Increase Medicare premiums for high earners (individuals making $500,000 annually)
Aim to cut Medicaid payments for prenatal care and preventive services for children in circumstances when another insurer could instead be liable for the costs

Let's all remember what this says about the values of current members of Congress when the next election arrives.

lborkowski Wed, 10/04/2017 - 13:53

Tags

Categories

Considering Candidates Post Las Vegas Massacre: Rule Out Tim Walz

gregladen — Mon, 02 Oct 2017 15:38:36 +0000

Considering Candidates Post Las Vegas Massacre: Rule Out Tim Walz

A man who was not even known as a gun collector amassed an arsenal that all experts agree included illegal fully automatic weapons. He carried out an act of carnage, alone and using only those weapons, that exceeded in casualty count almost every military battle fought in recent decades by American troops, and that equaled or surpassed all but a very small number of terrorist attacks.

He shot five hundred people.

He shot these people, killing nearly 60 of them, with guns he was able to get because he lives in America. In America, the Second Amendment has protected gun ownership for so long and so irrationally that, even though the worst killing machines are sort of, kinda, a little, illegal, you can still get them.

Guns are the only toys protected by a Constitutional amendment. Gun ownership is a deadly pasttime that is protected by Congress. Even though the CDC and other government agencies, and the concomitant experts, believe that guns are a major public health risk, Congress has legislated against the distribution of research funds one might use to study this problem. And, generally, Congress has been the lapdog of the National Rifle Association, which is a lobbyist organization representing gun and ammo manufacturers disguised as an interest group supporting guns as toys for men and women, but mostly men, across the country.

Why Tim Walz Is Not Viable as a DFL Gubernatorial Candidate

First, let me say that I would normally argue that it is too early to make strong statements against a fellow DFLer (Democratic Party) who is running for office. But what happened last night in Las Vegas has changed all that, and I have to speak out, and strongly so. I am very unhappy about this situation. Here's the story.

As I was poking around to find out how various members of Congress and future candidates for re-election had voted on guns, in pursuit of writing about Las Vegas. I was shocked and deeply disturbed to find that Congressman Tim Walz, who currently represents Minnesota's 1st District and is now running for the Democratic Party's endorsement for Governor, is one of those questionable members of Congress. I had seen Walz speak at a recent forum. Members of a gun-control group were there and they asked the first questions. They asked about various bills and they asked about silencers, an issue that has come up recently in the Minnesota legislature.

I was utterly confused by Congressman Walz's response to these questions. At no point did he lay down a position. He seemed to take more than one position at a time. He mentioned he was a veteran and a hunter several times, but he also mentioned that we have to be sensible about guns. But he wasn't able to articulate a position that I could understand, and I've been following and writing about gun issues for years. I left that forum not knowing what his position on guns was, but feeling like I had been somehow conned. In fact, I felt like I needed a shower after that set of answers, and I honestly can't explain exactly why. I did check my wallet on the way out the door, though.

Anyway, I have now looked into it. Walz is, essentially, a Republican when it comes to guns. He supports conceal carry. He supported a bill that allowed the registration and position of weapons that are normally illegal, by a privileged group. He supported the ban by Congress of the Washington DC law that included sensible trigger lock provisions, disallowed semiautomatic weapons, and provided for stricter registration He opposed legislation what would limit access to guns by people with questionable mental competence. And, I think he said, silencers should be legal, but again, I'm not sure.

Walz was actually a co-sponser of HR420, the Veterans Heritage Firearms act. This basically allowed veterans or people related to veterans (i.e., a LOT of people) to keep and register firearms that would normally be illegal, as long as they had stolen the gun off a dead enemy. Or otherwise acquired it while "overseas."

The act of Congress disallowing Washington DC to regulate its own guns was HR 1399 was also co-Sponsored by Walz. Congress allowed DC to continued to disallow sawed off shotguns, but not semiautomatic weapons.

The mental competence law that Walz supported was HR2547. This bill "Prohibits, in any case arising out of the administration of laws and benefits by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs, considering any person who is mentally incapacitated, deemed mentally incompetent, or experiencing an extended loss of consciousness from being considered adjudicated as a mental defective for purposes of the right to receive or transport firearms without the order or finding of a judge, magistrate, or other judicial authority of competent jurisdiction that such person is a danger to himself or herself or others."

It seems like Walz is especially concerned with protecting and even expanding beyond normal the gun ownership rights of veterans with mental disabilities, which by definition includes a subset of individuals who really should not be walking around with guns that are not even legal for other people to have.

The other Democratic candidates for Minnesota Governor have very different positions. Walz stands out like a sore thumb among his colleagues. Rebecca Otto wants a science based approach. She noted in a statement following the Las Vegas massacre that Congress has essentially illegalized scientific research on guns and gun safety. Clearly, we have made huge strides in automobile safety, and people generally have the right to drive cars, and far far fewer people are killed because of driving today than would otherwise have been possible without sensible science-based policy. We did not need a Constitutional Amendment protecting driving to make this happen. In fact, the Second Amendment damages our nation's ability to be sensible about gun laws.

Here is, in part, Otto's statement:

What we are doing with gun safety laws is not working. We must study gun violence as a public health issue just as we did motor vehicle safety and our work to reduce motor vehicle deaths. We need to steep our policies in evidence, not rhetoric. Let's collect the evidence and let our scientists study the issue.

The NRA has its place, but not at the expense of so many lives. The NRA and their gun lobby stranglehold on D.C. is a perfect example of the Politics of unfettered greed. Time to end the Politics of Greed & return to the Politics of the common good.

Here's the thing: Even Walz can be seen as advocating a sensible approach, if you stand in the back of the room, plug one ear, and kinda squint while he is talking about guns. But he has never voted for sensible change, and when he tries to advocate a mainstream progressive policy, his tongue gets stuck on his trigger and thing go badly. He is pushing himself as a progressive left of center who won't move to the right, but he's been far right on guns all along.

Sorry, Tim.

gregladen Mon, 10/02/2017 - 11:38

Tags

gun ownership

Democratic Candidates

Categories

A USA unencumbered by the insanity of the anachronistic Second Amendment and by a gerrymandering electoral college system, and with a preferential voting system like Australia's instant-runoff voting, would be the type of country that would actually match the mythology of the nation's view of itself.

Instead, the rest of the world regards it with aghast horror as it digs itself ever closer to hell, even in the face of all the advantages with which it has been bestowed.

Yup that about nails it Bernard.

I'm not from US - but anyways ...
'A well regulated militia'
It seems that then opening statement of the 2nd amendment has no weight. Perhaps a (at least a small) step for better would be to make that an actual requirement for gun ownership. And the stress would be on 'well regulated'.

The problem is encapsulated in this one statement:

There have been 1,516,863 gun-related deaths since 1968, compared to 1,396,733 cumulative war deaths since the American Revolution.

Source

Something needs to change and fast. A first step would be the impeachment and removal of Trump and then the discrediting of all those in Congress who support the NRA and its corrupting influences.

Nice one Greg. Great commentary on the double think that is epitomised by Tim Walz.

Minnesota, now who do we know who is a lawyer type from that state. I suspect he will be along in a minute.

Snag is Bernard the USA has tried hard to export its ways to the rest of the globe especially in corporate take overs as we see with such public institutions as the UK NHS.

And now Alt-facts seen across prominent media;

Facebook and Google promoted false news stories claiming that the shooter who killed more than 50 people in Las Vegas was a Democrat who opposed Donald Trump. The misidentification spread rapidly from dark corners of the internet to mainstream platforms just hours after hundreds were injured at a festival near the Mandalay Bay casino, the latest example of fake news polluting social media amid a breaking news story.

Source

It's interesting isn't it that the GOP don't want us to talk about addressing global warming after an exceptional hurricance, or about gun-control after an exceptional mass killing. And when we do discuss it, they want to stop research on the climate, just like they've stopped research on gun safety. It's almost like they fear the evidence and certainly don't want it to get anywhere near a congressional debate.

Richard: Exactly!

Lionel #5:

Perhaps you were referring to me?

I am a lawyer type from Minnesota.

You all know my position already.

Some gun control potential laws are constitutional and some are not.

If you want registration, I think that law (should it pass) would be constitutional.

If you want to ban guns, I think that law (should it pass) would not be constitutional - unless you amend the constitution.

If you want to confiscate all AR-15's, I think that law (should it pass) would not be constitutional - unless you amend the constitution.

If you want to ban silencers, I think that law (should it pass) would be constitutional.

If you want to require background checks to close the gun show loophole, I think that law (should it pass) would be constitutional.

PERHAPS it is time to push the narrative, the meme, that the NRA is a terrorist organization. They are pushing gun terror. They are the national gun terror organization. Lax gun laws in areas around the country allow guns to flood into other areas with no legitimate need for more guns. The ultimate goal of NRA strategies is not completely clear, but it results in more money for gun and ammo manufacturers and distributors, and politicians, and an arms race that helps put military guns and ammunition into the hands of children, crazies, clumsy, demented, incompetent, angry, foolish people. The motivation of the perpetrator of the Las Vegas slaughter is currently unknown. One suspects that things like inheritance of a trait for thrill seeking, a lack of empathy for other human beings, and a reptilian pleasure in causing pain might come into play, or maybe a brain tumor.

We regulate biohazards, chemical hazardous, rad hazards, cars, planes, and buildings to cut down on senseless tragedies. We do this as part of our humanity and maturity, and as part of our constitutional mandate to provide for the general welfare. Reagan in the past, and his partners in crime like Rupert Murdoch have steadily put pressure on these protective parts of the system to encourage it to self destruct, apparently in order to gain some parasitic advantage from the decay of the body politic.

The NRA is a terrorist organization. Pass it on.

"You all know my position already"

Yes: you take the position of science denier and habitual liar.

#11 seconded

#10 The amendment as enacted did not have AR015s in mind. Besides it is disingenuous to restrict the potential for harm to this one weapon type, that is the sort of non-argument a lawyer would make.

We regulate biohazards, chemical hazardous, rad hazards, cars, planes, and buildings to cut down on senseless tragedies.

Very good point. And it helps explain why the right is against continued study of the medical effects of gun ownership: if you can't produce evidence that ownership is, in general, more of a threat to health than a plus (or even being a break-even), you have accomplished 95%+ of the work of stopping intelligent legislation.

Right dean, just the sort of thing a terrorist organization would do.

Even though the vast majority of the people in the USA want to have background checks and other sensible restrictions for all gun sales, the NRA pushes for unrestricted access to weapons of mass destruction, thwarting the will of the American people by appealing to those who are perpetually stuck in an adolescent, pre-civilized mentality. The NRA intimidates and coerces members of the government to influence government policy. They manipulate and influence government policy by encouraging activities that result in mass destruction and assassination. Clearly traits of a terrorist organization. And while technically not pulling the trigger each and every time, the NRA is a mass enabler that allows others to do their dirty work. Viewed from this perspective, the NRA is a terrorist organization. With crazed, chest beating high priest hate monkeys like Ted Nugent in their leadership, it is not hard to see that the NRA is a terrorist cult, desperately trying to drag the nation back to the days of head hunting.

Kieth Olbermann agrees that The NRA Should Be Branded A Terrorist Organization

RickA

As if the fucking Constitution is written in stone. It's interpreted by the SC to suit the prevailing political bias of the SC. So it doesn't really mean all that much in absolute terms. You just use this ancient and frankly over-rated piece of parchment to justify your views on gun ownership.

And the pile of corpses just grew a lot bigger.

Darned keyboard (with its keys arranged in a sweeping curve), correction 'Keith'.

BBD #17:

I am aware the constitution can be changed. That is why I mentioned it in my #10.

It is very hard to change.

Until it is changed, or the Supreme Court dramatically changes their interpretation of the Constitution, certain laws proposed by people are a no go.

It doesn't matter how many people die by gun fire, until the constitution is changed guns cannot be banned.

That is just a fact.

Doesn't make it right or worth accepting with a nod, RickA.

Like you do.

BBD #20:

I don't know what "it" is referring to in your post.

Of course it is wrong that all those people were killed and injured in this heinous crime.

And it's wrong for vested interest and its political enablers on the right to twist the 2ndA to maintain gun industry profitability as the corpses pile up.

And it's wrong not to speak out against this vile business and the scum who prop it up.

Like you.

Let me first state that I do own several guns. However, I use them for hunting or in the case of the my 22 cal rifles for plinking. I have never seen the need to have a large capacity magazine on a weapon for hunting (I've fired 25 rounds for my last 23 big game animals).

Large caliber (223 or larger) semi-auto weapons are not needed by anybody other than police or the military. 99.9% of people who say they need a handgun for protection will probably shoot themselves or an innocent bystander if they try to use it.

I think the argument has been going on for along time whether or not the average citizen can have a fire arm if they are not part of a well regulated militia. I take the meaning of a well regulated militia to mean controlled by a state or other governmental authority; not a group of people who call themselves a militia.

Rich Bly #23:

You said "I think the argument has been going on for along time whether or not the average citizen can have a fire arm if they are not part of a well regulated militia. "

The argument is over. The Supreme Court decided in Heller and subsequent cases that the average citizen can indeed have a fire arm - even if they are not part of a well regulated militia, or even a group of people who call themselves a militia.

The Supreme Court decided the 2nd amendment is an individual right, like the right to free speech and freedom of religion, etc.

So until the constitution is amended, or the Supreme Court reverses its recent decisions (which is very unlikely), the argument is over.

So for better or worse, in the United States, the average citizen can have a firearm.

Now, as I said above, some laws could be passed which would be constitutional (not violate the 2nd amendment).

I suspect the courts would permit a ban on the bump accessory (not sure of the proper name). That is just my opinion, based on my reading of all the cases. I don't think banning the bump accessory infringes on the right to keep and bear arms.

This might be true for silencers also - they could probably be banned.

So some package could be put together which would do something to help.

But we will never be able to stop a determined person from committing mass murder. That is the price we pay for living in a free society.

But we will never be able to stop a determined person from committing mass murder.

It's only a matter of societal will. Of course, if there's not the will...

That is the price we pay for living in a free society.

There are many other nations will greater freedoms, and far fewer firearm deaths per unti population.

What you mean is that it's the price of lving in a society where a cadre of vested interests and their political abetters are able to nurture cultural fear in order to maintain their profits and perpetuate a perverted perception of individual rights.

So until the constitution is amended, or the Supreme Court reverses its recent decisions (which is very unlikely), the argument is over.

No it's not over. It's ongoing. Just because a politically biased SC made a bad decision doesn't mean that the argument is 'over'. You don't just wave away bad laws - you fight to get them changed.

But we will never be able to stop a determined person from committing mass murder. That is the price we pay for living in a free society.

That's not the point, you evil little shit. Look at the correlation between gun ownership and mass murder. That's the point.

You are a disgrace. You really are.

Look at the correlation between gun ownership and mass murder. That’s the point.

Indeed, as I indicated in a thread near here, I will place the link here too:

America's gun culture in eight charts

Furthermore:

Yes, the guns really do matter..

Agreed he is a disgrace.

>Guns are the only toys protected by a Constitutional amendment.

As you established before that, guns are not 'toys'. They are protected by a Constitutional amendment, and the only one to be so protected, not cars or other items that people say are regulated or licensed, so this needs to be considered as to why, not just ignored and suggest guns be treated the same.

Silencers do not operate as they appear in the movies and books, and banning them does nothing in terms of mass shootings or other gun issues. They merely prevent regular users from going deaf.

Silencers do not operate as they appear in the movies and books, and banning them does nothing in terms of mass shootings or other gun issues. They merely prevent regular users from going deaf.

Hearing protectors should be worn on the range and they will stop regular users from going deaf.

No civilian needs a silencer.

You people and your bullshit.

A silencer does not silence a gun. It reduces the sound level to that of a jackhammer.

A silencer does not silence a gun.

The only person on about silencers is Walz (as reported by Greg) and you. This is a total red herring and nothing to do with the main gist of any arguments for tighter gun control.

As for jackhammers, a gun used with silencer makes rather less noise, unless of course you have naval artillery in mind.

A silencer does not silence a gun. It reduces the sound level to that of a jackhammer.

Depends on the type of sound suppressor, calibre of firearm, type of load, barrel length, muzzle velocity. And who cares when it's a total irrelevance.

Worried about your hearing? Wear hearing protectors.

Worried about mass murderers? Ban paramilitary-type semiautos and high capacity magazines. It's not rocket science.

So why not get behind this? Or do you prefer ever-larger piles of corpses?

BBD #26:

People disagree on what the point is. I don't think the SC made a bad decision. I think they made the correct decision, given the 2nd amendment. If you want to change the decision, you need to change the language of the 2nd amendment. However, reasonable minds can differ without being considered "an evil little shit". As soon as you start name calling you have lost the argument.

The correlation between gun ownership and mass murder is irrelevant in America. It really isn't the point - because you cannot do anything about the number of guns that are in America or that will be sold in the future. Unless you change the 2nd amendment - which is very very unlikely to occur.

But you keep fighting the good fight and demonizing those who disagree with you - that will work for sure.

I hear there is a correlation between the number of cars sold and the number of drunk driving incidents. Perhaps we should ban cars.

I hear there is a correlation between the number of people and the number of drunk driving incidents. Perhaps we should ban people.

This correlation nonsense is really irrelevant.

The old saying - guns don't shoot people, people shoot people is really true.

The reverse - people don't shoot people, guns shoot people, really doesn't work - does it?

Perhaps a focus on the people and not the tool would be helpful.

People disagree on what the point is. I don’t think the SC made a bad decision. I think they made the correct decision, given the 2nd amendment.

The families of the 59 murdered people would be unlikely to agree with your insane views, RickA.

And make no mistake, they are insane. Look at the pile of corpses grow.

Perhaps a focus on the people and not the tool would be helpful.

No, you wretched imbecile. Perhaps a focus on the fact that no civilian has any reason to own a paramilitary semiauto rifle with a high capacity magazine would be helpful.

What the fuck is wrong with you denying this? What the fuck?

I just don't know what else to say to you.

BBD:

Millions of people have a reason to own them or they would not pay money for them.

Just because you see no reason for them doesn't make it so.

It doesn't matter how many families of gun victims want guns banned - they cannot be banned in the USA.

Your outrage is not doing anything useful.

Name calling is not helping your arguments either.

Millions and millions of semiauto rifles have been sold in America, many of them with high capacity magazines. If there is no reason to own them, why do people buy them? They are not cheap.

Perhaps reasons exist - but you do not like them or approve of them.

Why are you so mad at me anyway?

I didn't shoot those people.

Perhaps you should direct your anger at the murderer.

I am just reporting the state of the law in America and what is possible and what is not possible.

If there is no reason to own them, why do people buy them?

Still given to swimming in logical fallacy, I see.

Humans are very prone to "buy[ing]" things that they do not need, and often do not even want. More precisely, they are prone to buying things that they think they need, but do not. And humans are extrememly prone to buying things that they definitely do not need, but simply want for whatever valid or invalid reason that wanting has been initiated.

There is no rational need for the obscene proportion of gun ownership in the USA. There's certainly no need for the ownership of military-grade weaponry, and for the possession of multiple numbers of weapons and huge caches ofammunition.

Unless of course the USA really is at high risk of imminent societal collapse or of despotic government subjugation, in which case one has to wonder why people think they live in such a wonderful country to start with. Look at the second graph of greg's post More guns equals more gun deaths. The nation with the second-highest proportion of gun ownership after the US is Switzerland, which has compulsory national service, and which still has half the ownership rate of the States. What is is about the 'best country in the world' that necessitates that it be so heavily armed, and armed at such a high per capita lethal cost to its innocent citizens?

I didn’t shoot those people.

Non sequitur.

And you do provide tacit support for the status quo, so your innocence in the greater issue is debatable, if not completely absent.

Perhaps you should direct your anger at the murderer.

The underlying issue is not the existence of the murderer, but the degree to which his murderous inclinations were aided and abeted by a system that allows and actively promotes unecessary and extremely excessive access to weaponry capable of mass killing.

A proportion of people will always be moved to kill. We can't easily change that. We can however ensure that those who are so motivated are not facilitated in their endeavours by ridiculously slack laws that maximise their ability to cause harm to others.

I am just reporting the state of the law in America and what is possible and what is not possible.

You can tell yourself that RickA, if it salves your conscience, but others see your comments for what they are. And your comments are a faciliation of the maintenance of a system that should never have been allowed to develop to the point that is exists today - a bloated vested-interest behemeoth that influences government for its own ends, and that has inculcated in the nation a culture of fear and entitlement that the creators of the US constituition would never have envisioned or wanted to have occurred.

Bah. Why on earth does SB not have a preview buttion?

Oh, the irony...

And the frustration of swicthing to a smaller keyboard...

RickA

Millions of people have a reason to own them or they would not pay money for them.

You've confused 'want' with NEED.

Why are you so mad at me anyway?

Because you are claiming that people should be allowed to have weapons that are enablers for mass murder when no civilian NEEDS such weapons and you don't even understand the difference between desire and requirement.

And people are dying while the firearms industry makes handsome profits selling these expensive paramilitary weapons to civilians.

I assure you that you deserve every erg of contempt you get.

So the rest of what you say is wrong.

This fragment should have been deleted:

So the rest of what you say is wrong.

Guns do more harm than good today. The second amendment is not sacred. It can be amended or superseded. Better gun management, i.e., gun control is needed.

The ability to have nearly unlimited access to firearmst is very appealing to those who like to kill, hurt , and destroy. It is an appealing option for those permanently stuck in adolescent hero fantasies. It is appealing to those who like to bully and abuse. It is appealing to those who like to let raw emotion overrule logic and statistics. It is appealing to those who love guns and the power that it gives them more than they love humans or nature or beauty. It is appealing to those who like to think that they could fair better in a primitive environment than in a modern one. It is appealing to those who are afraid that the world is far more dangerous and threatening to them than it actually is. It is appealing to those who live in constant fear of being hurt or humiliated by others. Unlimited access to guns and ammo is highly appealing to those who profit from their sale and manufacture. And finally, unlimited access to weaponry is highly appealing to those who can think of no more imaginative or sophisticated way to protect themselves than to surround themselves with devices that throw off pieces of heavy metal at lethal speeds.

SteveP.

+1.

It is appealing to those who are afraid that the world is far more dangerous and threatening to them than it actually is.

Which is why the NRA peddles fear of 'them' in its adverts, which are blatant populist fearmongering.

And a fucking disgrace.

SteveP #45

" It is appealing to those who are afraid that the world is far more dangerous and threatening to them than it actually is"

Yes, this is at the heart of all of the pushing of the myth that evil boogiemen (non of them white, of course) are lurking around the corners in every city waiting to attack you, and the only defense is an honorable (always white, usually male or older women) person willing to stand up to them with a private gun.

The facts that such attacks are almost non-existent, and the "good person with a gun stops an attack" is as rare, don't matter.

Of course the 2nd amendment can be amended or revoked.

I consider this very unlikely - but it is possible.

What is more likely is that laws will be introduced and passed, some of which will be upheld by the courts and some of which will be struck down by the courts.

Banning the bump stock will probably pass and if signed by President Trump, would probably be upheld by the courts. Stopping the public from converting a semi-automatic to the equivalent of an automatic doesn't really infringe on the 2nd amendment, because you can still keep and bears "arms" (i.e. the original semi-automatic without the accessory).

Trying to ban semi-automatics will doom the law (even if it could be passed and signed into law) to being struck down in the courts (in my opinion).

If it was me, I would do a series of targeted bills, one for each item, so the whole package didn't go down over an over-reach. Senator Feinstein did the right thing with her bump stock ban bill - it is targeted and stand-alone. I expect it to pass both houses and be signed into law.

Antivaxers on Twitter: Fake news and Twitter bots

oracknows — Thu, 28 Sep 2017 05:00:00 +0000

Antivaxers on Twitter: Fake news and Twitter bots

Two years ago, I wrote about a study that demonstrated how the antivaccine movement had learned to use Twitter to amplify their antiscience message. At the time, I noted how in 2014, when the whole "CDC whistleblower" conspiracy theory was first hatched, antivaxers were so bad at Twitter, so obvious, so naive. The Tweeted inane claims at government officials, scientists, legislators, and whoever else might have influence on vaccine policy, using hashtags like #CDCwhistleblower and #hearmewell. (These hashtags are still in use, but much less active.) However they did get better, to the point where the study that I discussed pointed out how antivax Twitter accounts formed large networks Tweeting opposition to California SB 277, the bill (now law) that eliminated personal belief exemptions to school vaccine mandates.

All of this was before the 2016 election, even before Donald Trump came gliding down the escalator at Trump Tower to announce his candidacy for the Republican nomination for President. It was right around the time that fake news was beginning to be appreciated as the huge problem that it ultimately became. More importantly, it was long before it became appreciated how Twitter bots and hordes of Twitter trolls were engaged in an active effort to influence U.S. politics and the 2016 election, and how Facebook was weaponized for the same purpose.

An inestimably important tool in the armamentarium of tools used by those seeking to influence election politics were bots. A bot is an automated program that posts to social media according to an algorithm. Twitter bots are the ones that most people are familiar with; chances are very good that if you're on Twitter for any length of time you'll come into contact with bots, which are used to distribute Tweets en masse, sometimes in an attempt to influence Twitter's trending topics, sometimes just to give the appearance of way more support for people or policies than there actually is. If you're on Twitter long enough, you'll start to learn the telltale signs that an account might be run by a bot, although accounts that combine a mixture of human-generated and automated Tweets are also common.

It turns out that bots are everywhere. It turns out that there is evidence that Twitter is using them too. I shouldn't be surprised, and I wasn't really that surprised, but I was disturbed. Earlier this week I came across an article, SocialBots are Pouring the Pseudo into Science. #Vaccines. It was the product of Mentionmapp Analytics, a company that runs a website called Mentionmapp, which is a tool that looks at connections between accounts and advertises itself as making "finding Twitter's great stuff easier." It begins:

There’s no immunity. Computational propaganda is infecting every significant online socio-political conversation. Algorithms are directly influencing the content populating social feeds, and people with ill-intentions are using software automation tools to spread digital pathogens. There’s no escaping that the number of likes, re-tweets, shares, and views are the foundations of our “filter bubbles.”

These key social indicators are easily manipulated. They’re like micro-events and discerning human from non-human engagement is nearly impossible to detect. Detecting SocialBots at work and seeing concentrated efforts to influence public opinion and perceptions leaves us wondering how civil discourse will survive this spreading digital black death.

OK, so the article starts out a bit apocalyptic and overdramatic. It's a company that exists to sell its services analyzing Twitter networks. Still, that doesn't mean that the computer-automated manipulation of social networks isn't a massive problem. In any case, the company notes that the hashtags #vaccines and #antivax came to its attention recently, which made it curious to see how SocialBots are involved in online conversations about science and public health. Not surprisingly these days, the answer is: Heavily.

Mentionmapp notes that it's hard to do an analysis of what it calls SocialBots without getting pulled into the misinformation being spread by those bots, which, as it turns out, is a lot. Here's the story:

For this case-study we observed 23 different daily Twitter maps. Each map captures the last 200 tweets and the profiles that tweeted using a the hashtag #Vaccines. Before separating real profiles from the fakes, the first map we reviewed (above) seemingly highlights the divisiveness of this issue. We also noted the volume of tweets from those profiles staking an anti-vaccine position subsequently flow to high profile and politically partisan secondary profiles.

After reviewing the 23 separate maps of the hashtag #Vaccines, we documented 284 profile as SocialBots with one dominant participant emerging above the rest. Day in and day out @LotusOak is at the center of this conversation.

A short video is included to visually illustrate this phenomenon:

Regular Twitter users might also recognized prominent antivaccine activists and the pro-vaccine activists who make prodigious efforts to counter their misinformation. What some of those pro-vaccine advocates might be unhappy to learn if they've been countering Twitter users @LotusOak (name: Vera Burnayev, who, as far as Mentionmapp can tell, doesn't exist as a real, identifiable person), @eTweeetz, or @draintheswamp55, they've almost certainly been arguing with bots Tweeting antivaccine misinformation.

Mentionmapp also noted:

Out of the 23 maps we also noted the presence these four profiles re-tweeting @LotusOak on multiple days —

@SNCCLA = 11 days
@8greatyears = 5 days
@Marmy2c = 5 day
@theruralists = 5 days

We classify them as SocialBots. As well as noting 284 SocialBot profiles tweeting the hashtag #Vaccine, we also documented every hashtag used in conjunction with it. A total of 609 secondary hashtags were used. Here are the top 30 hashtags.

The authors also documented every hashtag used in conjunction with the #vaccine hashtag. those of you out there on Twitter will recognize a lot of them that came up in the top thirty: #LearnTheRisk, #CDCTruth, #homeoprophylaxis, #aluminum, #mercury, #GMO, and more. There are also some pro-vaccine hashtags in there but those are often used by pro-vaccine Twitter users along with #vaccines. I do note that I did find one thing about this list very puzzling. Anyone who's on Twitter and deals with antivaccine misinformation will know that, over the last few months, among the favorite hashtags used by antivaxers are those related to the antivaccine propaganda movie VAXXED, like #wearevaxxed (of course) and #praybig (I have no idea why antivaxers adopted this hashtag).

Why didn't these hashtags get flagged? I can think of a few possible reasons. One is that maybe the "VAXXED" contingent of the antivaccine movement is not as prominent as Andrew Wakefield would like everyone to believe. I'd like to think that, but there are other possible reasons. One possible reason is that, although #vaccines might be heavily influenced by bots, discussions using VAXXED-related hashtags are not. After all, why would they be? There are so many Wakefield groupies willing to use #wearevaxxed and #praybig to try to influence Twitter conversations. Alternatively, whoever is behind accounts like @LotusOak are not interested in promoting VAXXED and affiliated antivaccine viewpoints.

From my perspective, one of the weaknesses in the Mentionapp analysis flows from a lack of knowledge about the antivaccine movement. That's not surprising, as Mentionapp is not noted for its expertise regarding pseudoscientific arguments about vaccines or, more importantly, about the main players in the antivaccine movement. As a result, what I see as a key flaw is that Mentionapp's analysis focused on #vaccines as the main hashtag to study. As a first pass, that probably sounds reasonable, but there are so many more major hashtags used by antivaxers. Arguably, #vaccines isn't even the most important. No, I don't have quantitative data to support that conclusion and thus could be wrong, but my impression in the trenches in Twitter is that most antivaxers rarely use the #vaccines hashtag. In other words, real humans who are antivaccine probably don't use #vaccines that much, but it makes sense that bots would. That makes me wonder if this analysis overestimates the influence of bots in social media interactions on Twitter. That's not to say that bots are unimportant. Even if this analysis does overestimate their influence, it wouldn't surprise me if antivaxers are using Twitter bots to influence discussions about vaccines and to give the impression that antivaccine viewpoints are more prevalent than they in fact are.

I realize that my readers include a number of people who are active combatting antivaccine misinformation on social media, particularly Twitter. It's a hard and thankless job that subjects one to potential online abuse and stalking, particularly for women. I know that I hadn't really considered the possibility that antivaxers might be adopting the same tactics as political activists, namely using bots to try to influence the conversation on Twitter. At least, I didn't think it was likely to be happening on a large scale. The current article doesn't really answer the question of how prevalent these bots are, but it does suggest that it behooves science advocates to be aware of bots and have an idea how to identify them. Also, we should realize that not all bots are malicious. Some just post poetry, photography, or news, with no distorting effects on social media conversations.

There are several characteristics of Twitter accounts that should make you suspect you're dealing with a bot. One of the most glaring traits of Twitter bots is the frequency with which they Tweet. Benchmarks vary, but one commonly accepted benchmark is more than 50 Tweets per day. Some bots produce hundreds of Tweets a day, something real humans cannot do, at least not on a sustained basis. Another characteristic of a bot is that it frequently produces far more retweets than original Tweets. Remember, one of the main purposes of bots is amplification, to boost the signal from others by retweeting, liking, or quoting others. Another amplification technique is to program a bot to share news stories from selected sites without comment. This is particularly true if the content is always very similar, because bots are often programmed to post similar content.

There are, of course, other characteristics suggestive of a bot, such as not having an avatar or having an avatar that is a stolen or shared photo, having a random string of numbers at the end of its handle, and choice of URL shortener. Basically, after a while on Twitter, one starts to be able to "smell" a bot. Personally, I block any account I suspect of being a bot. I'm willing to accept the "collateral damage" of potentially blocking legitimate Twitter users.

Thanks to bots, social media has been weaponized. I might have some quibbles with Mentionapp's analysis, btu I also have to admit that part 2 hasn't been released yet. Maybe the deficiencies I've noted in this discussion will be considered and discussed in part 2. Maybe not. Even if they aren't, it's hard not to conclude that antivaxers aren't using bots to promote their point of view. It's the new reality. I can't help but wonder if we shouldn't have bots of our own.

oracknows Thu, 09/28/2017 - 01:00

Tags

Antivaccine nonsense

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Pseudoscience

Quackery

Skepticism/Critical Thinking

complementary and alternative medicine

medicine

Categories

Policy

among the favorite hashtags used by antivaxers are those related to the antivaccine propaganda movie VAXXED, like #wearevaxxed

LOLOLOLOL!!! Did they not realise that that hashtag could mean the opposite of what they meant it to?

I wonder if it matters to the supporters that they're retweeting boys.

I'm afraid I don't really understand what I'm reading here. I think perhaps there are sometimes parts of speech (verbs, prepositions etc) missing from the text. I've glanced through it several times, and still don't really get the point of all this.

Is it just saying that there are a few people who RT a lot, or something?

Brian, have you thought about doing an expose on the Tomljenovic and Shaw fakery?
Methinks you'd be a great person to take it to the press/media?

No, Brian. It shows that the accounts responsible for the most antivaccine tweets and retweets aren’t actual people at all, but are automated accounts - that is robots, or “bots”.

They were able to identify about 300 accounts that appear to be antivaccine bots.

Darn it.

I went to Mentionmapp to play around and see what I could see. They want you to create an account with them, which is fine, I guess. They ask for an e-mail address, and send a link to complete the signup. Completing the signup involves giving them yourr Twitter account name.

I don’t have one, but I know those who do. I’ll just use a friends account (with her permission, of course).

But no. It isn’t just telling them you have an account, you authorize them to -

This application will be able to:
Read Tweets from your timeline.
See who you follow, and follow new people.
Update your profile.
Post Tweets for you.
Will not be able to:
Access your direct messages.
See your email address.
See your Twitter password.

It looks like it would be fun to play around with, but I wouldn’t do this with an account I created just for this purpose.

I've worked in a field related to identifying automatons online before. It's not that hard to identify bots, so Twitter must have some other motivation for not rooting out this problem, even though it clearly seems to decrease the value of their platform. Maybe their idea is just that volume is all-important.

Orac writes,

I can’t help but wonder if we shouldn’t have bots of our own.

MJD says,

The Orac minion PGP is suspected of being a bot (Bothersome, Obnoxious, and Tenacious).

@ Johnny (#5),

Thanks for the summary, I appreciate that clarification.

With that act of kindness, you've dropped off the top 25 list for Orac's minions.

With that act of kindness, you’ve dropped off the top 25 list for Orac’s minions.

Challenge accepted.

I think that Johnny is a spectacular commenter/ minion because he frequently highlights SB material whilst simultaneously insulting and deriding woo-meisters and others of that ilk including MJD.

No need to thank me, Johnny. My approval will put you back in the rarified environment of Top 5ers.

I do not think science skeptics should respond with bots.

The noise bots create would make any true dialogue impossible.

Hmm. @LotusOak joined Twitter in November 2011 and sends out an average of 18-19 tweets a day. @eTweets joined in April 2014 and sends out an average of 14-15 tweets a day. @draintheswamp55 has the volume of a bot at 72-73 tweets a day, but all I see on their Twitter page are posts about geoengineering and weather manipulation.

Compare to the pro-vax @doritmi, who joined Twitter long before any of them in July 2009 and sends out an average of 32-33 a day. Most of them seem to be retweets, or sharing news stories from selected sites (like this one!) without comment--two of the indications of a bot, according your post.

Doesn't seem like you made a great case here for a Twitter takeover by anti-vax bots. :D

In other anti-vax (networking) news...

I just listened to
( although I skipped around after 25 minutes or so- after al,l I'm not Wonder Woman- my tolerance has limits),

an interview with Miranda Bailey and AJW about their new film, "The Pathological Researcher... I mean OPTIMIST"
( see Fearless Parent.org/ yesterday/ episode 106)
and learned how the two protagonists met up- it was via show host, Louise Kuo Habakus "nearly 10 years ago"

So I suppose Bailey is so TOTALLY neutral as a film maker

Other BS within about Brian Deer etc.

@panacea #11

I do not think science skeptics should respond with bots.

I agree. The short-gamers are willing to lie and manipulate; the long-gamers have to take a more principled stand.

Unfortunately things may get a bit rough in the short to medium term.

I have 27 bots about infectious diseases. They’re not very active lately because I don’t have the time to update each time that Twitter updates their terms. But, at their height, they got into actual arguments with other bots. It was a sight to see.
The funniest bit is that a certain “gnat” has my official @EpiRen account blocked, but I’ve had plenty of discussions with him with the other accounts. The fool doesn’t know it’s me although I drop plenty of hints.
Twitter is such a weird place.

I think that Johnny is a spectacular commenter/ minion because he frequently highlights SB material whilst simultaneously insulting and deriding woo-meisters and others of that ilk including MJD.

Yeah, I agree, I could learn a thing or two but recently, I've become way too ranty because of personnal circumstances which I chalk it up to a pissing matches between my current shrink (MD/PhD Frenchmen) and the previous one (also MD/PhD and also, Frenchmen) over my diagnostic.

Disclaimer: my shrink may not see it as a pissing math. Entirely my own op...rant.

Also, the brother (ya know, the one with 15 000 questions in an 8 hours timeframe). It's been weeks my phone is unplugged.

Al (whose current shrink doesn't believe is autistic).

Oh, and before anyone asks:

The reason for the diagnostic workup which has been going for the last 7 years and my shrink is expected to come up with a dx is entirely mandated by tax credits (30 000$ at my last count), work stuff and a few other governmental (both QC and Canadian ones) which are due next year because this is the standing limitation over both tax credits agencies to redo my last 10 years of taxes which I have paid a significant (and some huge) amount of taxes.

Otherwise, everything's fine regarding the medication and I really dont give a rat a** about the dx.

Alain

@Alain:

My therapist (among others) suspected that I might be an "Aspie," so I ended up taking some sort of test and scored in the range of what used to be called Asperger's. It is definitely not the diagnosis of concern, though, and personally I consider it more of a personality quirk.

Actually, not long ago I got into a passionate linguistic argument with a friend from Olympia (he is a major prescriptivist) over the use of singular "they," and at some point he called me an "Aspie libertarian," (libertarian in terms of English language "rules") so I told him his French was showing. (He has an MA in French literature.)

JP,

it's entirely possible that you come up with an Asperger profile but it may not be for the reasons that the test envisioned it (poor wording choice on my part).

getting past the point of usual psychometric involve the learning abilities of the brain. I'll take an example, Addiction:

DSM-I chalk it up to a personality disorder (again, bad choice of word for "disorder"). I don't know how many DSM revision it took to take it out of the personality disorder axis but one can take a look at rehab center today to see it being treated as a personality disorder (and even ex-addict perpetuate the myth that it is a personality disorder) but then, an alternative hypothesis is the learning one proposed by Maia Szalavitz.

We're at this point, my shrink and me. to help complete the work, I have to contact many different workplace and work placement agency to file the Canadian equivalent of a FOIA request regarding my work review in the various place that I have worked over my life and write down a resume for my shrink.

Basically, I'm doing a census over all my symptoms; all of them. He'll do the differential but I am definitely inclined to review the literature to come up with my own differential at this point; if only for my own sake.

Panacea: The noise bots create would make any true dialogue impossible.

Why bother with a dialogue? Fence-sitters don't exist, everyone's minds are made up already.

Yeah, I dunno. I mean, maybe I have obsessive niche interests just because I have obsessive niche interests. And maybe I largely hide my feelings (except with certain people) because coming off as "ice cold" is a way to deal with emotional abuse.

On the other hand, every therapist I've ever seen has commented on my "flat affect" when discussing really heavy stuff.

My current therapist is really big on these d@mn "feeling word" sheets that I'm supposed to remember and use. When it comes to my general daily mood, I'm often like "I dunno, is 'numb' a feeling?" Although I suppose "despair" often fits as well.

^ "alexithymia" is a word I have heard quite a few times in a mental health context.

I had a few beers, maybe I shouldn't comment because of that but what spring to mind is homeostasis and alexithymia is born out of that because the unknown could trigger feelings way outside that comfort zone. hypothesis one out of many other possible candidates.

Alexei Thymia could be the name of your Bulgarian ballad-singing alter ego, JP.

"I had a few beers"

You and me both, friend. Don't worry about it, comment freely. (For the record, I have had a couple of Rainiers, the once local American p!sswater beer. Hey, I ain't made of money.)

I'm really not supposed to, but well, oh well.

mines come from http://www.archibaldmicrobrasserie.ca/index.php/fr/ (sorry, no LC_ALL=en_CA version of the website). That said, previous ones where from one of my previous employers: http://mabrasserie.com/

Well, I know the owners and various staff workers from both breweries.

JP and Alain, I love you both. Keep well, and keep going on.

I just read two books by John Elder Robison: Look Me in the Eye, and Raising Cubby. You would all fit together: humor, confusion, uber intelligence and the whole mess.

As would much of my family. Fortunately one of the best things my stepmother ever did was get me into therapy when I was very young (and dealing with the death of my mother, who was a childhood friend of my stepmother, a weird story). She had her own issues, and at least she recognized when I needed help.

Thanks you very much Chris,

I did speak to John once 2-3 years ago and yeah, we'd all fit very well and I do plan to buy his books (all of them? maybe). One thing's for sure is that, I should write my biography.

I wish I could stay up but 5am is coming up soon enough (currently 22:55 so ~6 hours of sleep time). I'll catch up on sleep time this weekend.

And BTW, once 30 000$'in, I'm booking a tour of the US of A.

Alain: "I do plan to buy his books (all of them? maybe)."

Both books were at my local library. It did not cost me anything to borrow them.

I'm honored that my modest efforts to help in the good fight have been noticed, but I have to admit that I have been a bit soft on MJD lately.

Part of the reason is my recent back and forth with NWOR - not that she laid a finger on me argument-wise, but dealing with the dishonesty and childish arguments she brought out makes me think that it's probably a good thing I never had kids. I'd expect more from them. To those who are still exposing her general unfitness to be here (or even claim the title of 'Adult'), I lift an adult beverage in your honor, and say that in dealing with her, I believe you're tougher than woodpecker lips. Not that it's hard work, but even swatting gnats gets tiring.

I've also been distracted by the Ken Burns Viet Nam series. Dad was there back in the day, and when they put an end to the draft, my draft sequence number was 3 (translated to english, I was next up for the meat grinder). Having had a teacher whose husband was shot down (they found a few pieces of him), and several friends whose fathers were killed there, I thought I'd paid attention to what was going on at the time. Boy, howdy, was I wrong. The biggest surprise is how worthless and corrupt the SVN government was at the time. I learn a lot here, but lately I've been learning a lot somewhere else.

Another part is that MJD pissed me right the H3LL off with his hospice post. It still makes me stabby to see his name.

And another part is just laziness. I made his 'enemies list', so why bother carrying on. Apparently it's like being King. Just because you're on top today doesn't mean someone doesn't want your crown.

I see my error. As I said at #9 "challenge accepted".

@Chris:

Thanks. I will look up those books (I finally got a library card, my old one from growing up was no longer valid; that's where I got the Palestinian cookbook that I love and keep renewing.)

Yeah, if I had been in therapy at a younger age, after my dad died, things might have turned out better, but honestly who knows. Some of my stuff is from life experiences I think, but some of it is also from "chemicals in the brain" or whatever.

Neither side of my family is exactly emotionally expensive (well, my dad was with my mom and us kids.) And they are all uncomfortable with "that stuff," that is, psychology and psychiatry.

Speaking of fake news on social media:

"Fake wellness blogger Belle Gibson has been ordered to pay a fine of $410,000 after being found guilty of misleading and deceptive conduct earlier this year."

"The Federal Court in Melbourne found she misled her readers when she claimed her brain cancer was cured through alternative therapies and nutrition."

"It was later revealed she never had the disease."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-28/disgraced-wellness-blogger-belle-…

Did anyone actually come up with any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot?

Any to top pro-vax Twitter bots...I mean pages...like @doritmi, averaging 32-33 tweets a day since 2009, or @ADAdultimmDoc, averaging 27-28 tweets a day since 2014--both characterized by an abundance of retweets and/or links to selected pro-vax sites without comment?

Just curious. :)

JP: "Neither side of my family is exactly emotionally expensive ..."

It probably helped that my stepmother had taken some college psyche classes. She was trying to get her life together by living with her oldest brother, raising her daughter (who has no idea who her father was), and other things... like her last conversation with my mother before she left on the plane that crashed.

Um, my dad remarried six months after my mother died because her cousin was going to sue for custody of me and my five year old sister. So, yeah, weird family dynamics are not unusual in my world.

My stepmother had her issues. This includes my stepsister tears when she recounts the frustration in finding out information about her unknown father. But at least I got the psychological conversations to get me through puberty. Trust me, it was not pretty.

NWO Ginny, you need to answer some questions with real honesty. You have failing in that department in spades. You do not understand how to take a basic ratio, nor do your understand the legal term "settlement"... and you were a lawyer!

Here is something you should be able to answer. During the last flu season over a hundred American kids died from flu:
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/news/reported-flu-deaths-children.htm

Now you need to come up with the PubMed indexed studies that show any influenza vaccine approved for pediatric use in the United States of America caused more harm than those one hundred deaths during the last flu season.

By the, I do not use twitter, nor do I have a facebook account. Social media is a time suck.

Johnny: I'm still not convinced that NWO isn't actually a pair of kids using their Mom's computer. "Her" posts smack of an attempt to be 'edgy,' she doesn't seem to be remotely smart enough to be a lawyer (to the point that I wonder if she didn't offer 'personal services' to pass the bar, or more likely, came from a rich family), and she uses emojis all the time. Adults simply don't do that.

Also, I realize a lot of lawyers have honesty issues, but NWO is almost Trumpian in her disregard for the facts. Even Nixon told the truth once in a blue moon.

So, according to Chris and PGP, the answer to my question--which it is possible to ferret out amidst the personal insults, derision,and faulty assumptions--is no, they have not been able to find any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot. Anyone else?

NWO Ginny, your question is just a dodge. A way of moving goal posts.

It would be amusing if it was not so sad.

...she doesn’t seem to be remotely smart enough to be a lawyer...

Hey, I’m sure she’s just as good a lawyer as she is an artist.
http://www.virginiastoner.com/

I would agree that her arguments are childish. For example, who else would comment in an article that states “...Twitter users @LotusOak (name: Vera Burnayev, who, as far as Mentionmapp can tell, doesn’t exist as a real, identifiable person), @eTweeetz, or @draintheswamp55, they’ve almost certainly been arguing with bots Tweeting antivaccine misinformation”, and claim for all to hear “...no, they have not been able to find any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot”.

Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience.

and she uses emojis all the time. Adults simply don’t do that.

Clearly you do not follow Chelsea Manning on the electric Twitter machine.

Oh, dear. I have been known to use emojis from time to time. I wonder how frequent the use of emojis has to be before you invoke the "adults simply don't do that" rule.

I, too, use emojis a lot. But then, I'm old enough that I don't have to adult if I don't want to. :)

Again, Johnny: @LotusOak -- 18-19 tweets a day. @eTweeetz -- 14-15 tweets a day. @draintheswamp55 could be a bot based on tweet volume, but its focus is on geoengineering and weather manipulation, not vaccination.

Compare to pro-vax pages: @doritmi -- 32-33 tweets a day. @ADAdultimmDoc -- 27-28 tweets a day.

Your personal insults can't hide which look more like bots.

I do not think science skeptics should respond with bots.

I'm not sure I completely agree with you.

Consider that the anti-vaccine camp recycles a lot of well debunked arguments. A bot could dress those, and leave people time to address any new arguments that come up.

For example, when they claim that mercury in the MMR caused their kid's autism, a real person shouldn't have to take time to say 'no, the MMR was a live virus vaccine, so it never had thiomersal'.

Of course, the down side is that all the time saved debunking the antivaxers repetitive claims would be spent maintaining the bots.

Did anyone actually come up with any anti-vax Twitter pages that fit the profile of a bot?

Ginny dear, aren't you getting enough attention in other threads? Do you really need to troll every fresh thread with demands that people respond to your demands or else concede defeat?

Daaaaaaaaaamn! That's some good art, Ginny. Pro tip: Stick to art.

Although I know I really shouldn't get involved....

Notice how NWOR fixates on one characteristic of what Orac wrote about how to distinguish a bot**-
number of tweets per day- ONLY
whereas there are other important markers-
how they link to others, how there are less originals, content

This reminds me a bit of what Jake does - fixates on what a person says without context ( e.g. recently sarcasm about getting rid of whiteys) or how he misuses what Orac writes

It seems as though paritsans of woo often get fixated on details without seeing the big picture
.
I wonder why that is? ( I ask with tongue firmly in cheek)

** see Tannersdad for frequency SRSLY

JP: I don't tweet at all. For largely the same reason I don't do reddit.

Orac: Every post though?

@PGP

Well shoot, you're missing out on the absolute best and worst of what the Internet has to offer. Where else can you see Ted Cruz "like" a porno clip that would be quite pedestrian if it weren't for the incestuous voyeur angle? Or Charlie Daniels protest the NFL by not watching Thursday night football on a Wednesday?

Personally I particularly enjoy Weird Twitter and Left Twitter, especially when they overlap, which is often.

Totally OT, but everyone here should go listen to the album "Lost Causes" by Daniel Kahn & The Painted Bird.

Also hell yeah emojis ❤️??????

@JP

Emojis? You silly millennials.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Emojis? Arghh! (╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻

Dictatorship of the millennials, baby!

JP: "Well shoot, you’re missing out on the absolute best and worst of what the Internet has to offer. "

I don't need the 'net to follow me home, thanks. Twitter and Reddit are absolute cesspits- I don't need to go wading in sewage to know that it's there.

I don’t need the ‘net to follow me home, thanks.

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

The 'net is only taking photographs through your windows because it cares about you very very much and wants to be with you all the time.

I wonder how frequent the use of emojis has to be before you invoke the “adults simply don’t do that” rule.

Gindo uses them in the style of spastic colon. On the other hand, I just block that sh*t entirely when possible.

Gindo uses them in the style of spastic colon.

When mine gets like that I usually figure I've been drinking too much coffee.

Ok, so my response might have been over the top, but I still maintain that Twitter and Reddit are trashheaps. Twitter has only one use- keeping a certain orange someone occupied, while Reddit is marginally more useful in that it can tell people what men are really thinking.

Also, isn't art, even NWO's attempts, illegal in Texas? There might be a loophole for works by Thomas Kinkade, but that ain't art.

@ PGP:

Texas "Ort".

Very Rev: Hilarious, thank you! Kinda proves my point though- most of those statues aren't art.

You are totally crazy and this article is totally baseless like you scientist of the vax cartel that started by Bayer and friends responsible for Hitler's holocaust. FACTS and HISTORY can't be wiped clean so everyone look up Bayer+Hitler+AIDS+murder

@Sheeple101, could you repeat that in English, please? My "Paranoid rant to English" Translator blew out when I put your comment through it.

Almost, but not entirely off topic - it does involve an antivaxer -

Jake has a post, which, like many others he's done, is just massive amounts of copy pasta with a new headline.

It seems RFKjr is pushing for the extradition of Poul Thorson, which Jake, as you would expect, is much in favor of. But being Jake, he has to show how much he doesn't really understand by calling on Trump to extradite Thorson. Exactly how the US President is suppose to force another soverign nation to ship one of their citizens to the USA is left unclear.

But here's the thing - we already have requested extradition. We did that back when he was indicted, as you would expect. Who was leading the effort to extradite Thorson? Sally Yates, the acting Attorney General that Trump fired.

https://www.justice.gov/archive/usao/gan/press/2011/04-13-11.html

United States Attorney Sally Quillian Yates said of the case, “Grant money for disease research is a precious commodity. When grant funds are stolen, we lose not only the money, but also the opportunity to better understand and cure debilitating diseases. This defendant is alleged to have orchestrated a scheme to steal over $1 million in CDC grant money earmarked for autism research. We will now seek the defendant’s extradition for him to face federal charges in the United States.”

The RFKjr article that Jake reposted ends with -

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Chairman, stated, “World Mercury Project calls upon Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, to extradite Thorsen back to the U.S. to face prosecution. We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”

Gee, Trump fired Price, too (well, Trump let him resign), and while Sessions still has a job, his chances for long term employment aren't looking too good.

We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”

I'm going out on a limb here to speculate that RFK Jnr has no idea what papers, if any, came out of the project with the allegedly misspent funds, and that he is enough of a dumbarse to think that they're the earlier Danish studies.

WTF does he mean by "illegally conducted research"? Does he think that misuse of CDC funds means that any research involving the non-misused funds becomes "illegal"? Isn't this nimrod supposed to be a lawyer?

Still, if he wants to declare the entire Trump administration "illegal" because one of its members misused funds, go for it!

"All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Denial and desperate excuses probably signal the ending of the first stage and the beginning of the second. WeAreVaxxed

Dear ifigureditout2,

Agreed, all truth passes the three stages. Arthur Schopenhauer did not speak about falsehood :)

Do falsehood passes the same three stages?

Where does "regurging fictitious quotations" fit into the system?

"Every fabricated quotation passes through three stages. First, it is passed around true-believing nimrods who feel that its truthiness is enhanced by a fraudulent attribution. Second, it is adopted by med-scammers with merchandise to sell. Third, it is ridiculed." -- Herr Doktor Bimler.

NWO: You do know sockpuppeting is a bannable offense in these parts, right?

We also call upon Secretary of Health and Human Services, Dr. Tom Price, to retract the Thorsen-affiliated autism research papers that are the fruit of illegally conducted research.”,/I.

I think Price has other things on his mind right now.

I'm pretty sure that Sheeple101 and ifigureditout2 are just random cockwombles determined to prove that human commenters can be every bit as predictable and cognition-free as a twitter-bot.

The guys from the Th1Th2bot service center are mostly just tooling around in RVs at this point, but care and feeding can be a lot of work from what I hear.

And in more Jake news...

AI has been down a coupla hours. Just a page that suggest the site has been ‘suspended’, and a note that “If you're the site owner, contact us at 1-480-505-8855.”

That smells like a TOS violation somewhere along the line. Or maybe mommy is tired of paying the bills.

Hah! Maybe she read one of Jake's screeds. Though I wouldn't think there'd be any line too appalling to cross for a Crosby. It might sting that she won't have grandchildren ever.

And AI is back, darn it.

Ah rats.

Some real news from CBC:
Quebec barber finds special connection with 6-year-old client with autism

Doug,

Thanks, I'm reading it but yes, I'm autistic and need to have a barber; each week.

Alain

Occupational Health News Roundup

kkrisberg — Wed, 27 Sep 2017 16:31:43 +0000

Occupational Health News Roundup

At the Toronto Star, reporter Sara Mojtehedzadeh went undercover as a temp worker at Fiera Foods, an industrial bakery, to investigate why temp workers are more likely to get hurt on the job. Earlier this year, Canadian occupational health and safety officials brought charges against the company, whose clients include Dunkin’ Donuts, Costco and Walmart, for the death of 23-year-old Amina Diaby, who was strangled to death after her hijab got caught in a machine.

Mojtehedzadeh, along with Brendan Kennedy, write:

I get about five minutes of training in a factory packed with industrial equipment.

I am paid in cash with no deductions or pay stubs. I pick up my wages from a payday lender, a 35-minute bus ride from the factory.

Fiera has been slapped with 191 orders for health and safety violations over the past two decades, for everything from lack of proper guarding on machines to unsafely stored gas cylinders.

At least a dozen of the women I meet on my assembly line at Fiera, a multimillion-dollar company, are hired through temp agencies.

Temp agency workers are changing the face of labour in Ontario.

In workplaces around the province, the use of temp agencies limits companies’ liability for accidents on the job, reduces their responsibility for employees’ rights, and cuts costs.

When I walk into the factory, I see mostly people of colour. Many are new Canadians. Many told me they have taken this job for one reason: to survive.

The story describes the speed of the production line as “crushing” — Mojtehedzadeh reports:

Work that is too slow elicits shouting. Work that is too sloppy elicits more shouting. Our lead hand fires out a salvo of shrill commands to push the tempo.

The pinching continues for seven hours and 15 minutes. We receive one half-hour lunch break, as required by law. It is unpaid. We also receive a paid 15-minute break.

I feel overwhelming relief when it’s finally my turn for lunch. My shoulders are on fire. I shuffle to the break room and look eagerly at the THINK SAFETY clock. Only three hours have passed. A co-worker watches me collapse onto a bench.

“It gets harder,” she calls out.

Read the full story at the Toronto Star.

In other news:

Charleston Gazette-Mail: Ken Ward Jr. reports that Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., will oppose Trump’s nominee to head the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Trump has nominated former coal executive David Zatezalo, who served as chairman of Rhino Resources. While Zatezalo was an executive at Rhino, the mining company received more than one letter from MSHA regarding a “pattern of violations”; another Rhino mine was the target of an MSHA lawsuit for undermining inspections. Manchin said in his statement: “I have comforted too many families who have lost loved ones serving our nation in the mines. Strong leadership at the Mine Safety and Health Administration is non-negotiable.”

Arizona Daily Star: Emily Bregel reports that about 160 members of the Southwest Regional Council of Carpenters showed up at a meeting of the Industrial Commission of Arizona to confront officials about being too lenient with employers who violate health and safety standards. The also confronted the commission for not aggressively going after wage theft allegations and fraud within the construction industry. (An OSHA investigation found the commission arbitrarily reduced penalties for safety violations.) Bregel reported that during the meeting, union President Fabian Sandez said: “In our industry, dishonest businesses commit on a continuing basis acts of wage theft, fraud and willful safety violations, putting the physical safety and financial well-being of our state’s workers at risk. Yet this commission has chosen to side with lawbreakers by reducing fines, watering down violations, rather than taking the appropriate actions demanded by law.”

CNBC: Lauren Thomas reports that Target will be raising its minimum wage from $10 to $11 and is committed to raising it to $15 by 2020. The move comes amid a “quiet wage war” between Target and Walmart, which had previously announced a raise to $10 an hour by 2016. Target said the wage increase will start in October and will apply to the 100,000 temp workers it plans to hire for the holidays. In a commentary, Peter Sonn, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, writes that Target’s decision “blows up the claims of corporate lobbyists who argue it's simply not possible for industries like retail and restaurants to pay a $15 minimum wage.” He goes on to write: “Target's plan to raise pay to $15 an hour over the next 30 months is smart business strategy, and what our nation's workforce and economy need. There's now a bullseye on the back of employers like Amazon, Walmart and McDonalds. They should follow Target's lead.”

NBC Philadelphia: Alicia Victoria Lozano writes that the Philly-area International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local Union 98 is preparing to file suit against pharmaceutical companies that have contributed to the opioid epidemic. The union has lost eight members in 11 months to the drug. The union recently changed its opioid prescription policy to help prevent addiction, with members using the union’s health provider now limited to five days of opioids for injury or pain. The old policy allowed for unlimited opioid prescribing. Lozano quoted John Dougherty, business manager for the union, who said of fellow workers: “They don't want to miss any work time, so they work through injuries, which compounds the pain and leads to the use and abuse of opioids. I'm sick of seeing our members working themselves into an early grave.”

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years. Follow me on Twitter — @kkrisberg.

kkrisberg Wed, 09/27/2017 - 12:31

Categories

Policy

Latest data on working conditions in global supply chains, September 2017 edition

garrettbrown — Thu, 21 Sep 2017 14:55:52 +0000

Latest data on working conditions in global supply chains, September 2017 edition

The whole world is one global supply chain. Brand name companies like Nike, Apple, Hasbro, and dozens of apparel companies do not actually make the consumer products they sell. Instead they hire contract manufacturers in the developing world to produce their goods, and these contractors have sub-contractors, and sub-sub-contractors, all the way down to industrial homework in workers’ homes. Global supply chains start with processing the products’ raw materials, manufacturing parts and the finished product, and then transportation to the consumer.

How can a conscientious consumer or occupational health professional keep track of working conditions and workers’ rights in global supply chains? There is a comprehensive “one stop” way, and then multi-stop methods for the more ambitious.

For one-stop shopping, sign up for weekly notifications from the UK’s “Business & Human Rights Resource Centre”. The staff of this non-profit organization in London scours the internet every day for the latest reports from companies, governments and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) on all aspects of global business. Their concise weekly update provides the headlines for what has been released that week, and also the response of the corporations whose operations are the subject of the reports.

Not all the companies respond to the Resource Centre’s invitation to comment, but the most publicity-conscious corporations often do, providing a richer understanding of impact of global supply chains and the varied efforts to improve working conditions.

In general, there are four sources of information about working conditions and the efforts to implement corrective actions in these supply chains: news media reports; factory reports from NGOs, factory reports from “multi-stakeholder initiatives” (MSIs); and reports from the corporate social responsibility (CSR) departments of the transnational corporations themselves.

I have assembled a selection of the key reports and articles from these four sources for the period of June to September 2017. Some of my favorites this quarter are:

The International Labor Organization’s report on the 40+ million people caught in modern slavery;
A Fordham University law professor’s critique of corporate social responsibility;
The Guardian and Washington Post articles on illegal and abusive conditions in Ivanka Trump’s shoe factories in China (here, here); and
The Baptist World Aid (Australia) computer simulation game on “who makes my clothes?”

A more ambitious, and time-consuming, way to stay informed is to sign up for the weekly or monthly notices from the following types of organizations:

Labor rights organizations, such as the Clean Clothes Campaign and Good Electronics
Multi-stakeholder initiatives, such as the Ethical Trading Initiative and Fashion Revolution
Corporate social responsibility organizations and industry associations, such as Electronics Industry Citizen Coalition

If one has an interest in supply chains that involve a particular area of the world, then these organizations’ web sites can be visited regularly for news from Asia, Africa and the Americas.

If one has a particular industry in mind then these organizations’ web sites can be followed, including apparel, electronics and toys, although some these organizations focus more than just one industry’s supply chain.

Dozens of labor, human rights, and environmental groups are monitoring and investigating global supply chains. Every week they issue detailed and first-hand reports from the factory floors and communities that make up global supply chains. They want consumers and advocates to have this information. They want this information to inform decision making and public policy. They want it to influence the reputation of transnational corporations. They want it to improve the lives of millions of workers, their families and communities around the world.

So dive in! Use the knowledge to make a difference!

Garrett Brown is a certified industrial hygienist who worked for Cal/OSHA for 20 years as a field Compliance Safety and Health Officer and then served as Special Assistant to the Chief of the Division before retiring in 2014. He has also been the volunteer Coordinator of the Maquiladora Health & Safety Support Network since 1993 and has coordinated projects in Bangladesh, Central America, China, Dominican Republic, Indonesia, Mexico and Vietnam.

garrettbrown Thu, 09/21/2017 - 10:55

Tags

Business & Human Rights Resource Centre

corporate social responsibility

Categories

Doctors, public health workers, patient advocates — even insurers — oppose latest ACA repeal

kkrisberg — Wed, 20 Sep 2017 16:20:00 +0000

Doctors, public health workers, patient advocates — even insurers — oppose latest ACA repeal

Senate Republicans are again trying to ram through an Affordable Care Act replacement that threatens the health and well-being of millions of Americans. It’s shameful. But don’t take my word for it. Let’s look at what people who actually work in health care are saying about the Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson bill.

In this interview, Sen. Bill Cassidy insists that his bill would protect people with pre-existing conditions. Blue Cross Blue Shield Association disagrees. (Cassidy also says in that same interview that his bill would work through the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), which he said has been reauthorized. That’s totally false — CHIP has not been reauthorized and its funding expires Sept. 30.) But back to pre-existing conditions — here’s what Blue Cross Blue Shield had to say:

Although we support providing states with greater flexibility in shaping health care options for their residents, we share the significant concerns of many health care organizations about the proposed Graham-Cassidy bill. The bill contains provisions that would allow states to waive key consumer protections, as well as undermine safeguards for those with pre-existing medical conditions. The legislation reduces funding for many states significantly and would increase uncertainty in the marketplace, making coverage more expensive and jeopardizing Americans’ choice of health plans.

America’s Health Insurance Plans just released this letter that was sent to Senate leaders Mitch McConnell, R-KY, and Charles Schumer, D-NY. Guess what? They also read the proposed repeal as taking away protections for pre-exiting conditions:

The Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson proposal...would have real consequences on consumers and patients by further destabilizing the individual market; cutting Medicaid; pulling back on protections for pre-existing conditions; not ending taxes on health insurance premiums and benefits; and potentially allowing government-controlled, single-payer health care to grow.

AARP thinks so too:

Overall, the Graham/Cassidy/Heller/Johnson bill would increase health care costs for older Americans with an age tax, decrease coverage, and undermine preexisting condition protections. In addition, this bill would jeopardize the ability of older Americans and people with disabilities to stay in their own homes as they age and threaten coverage for individuals in nursing homes.

Cassidy insists more people will have coverage under his plan. But strangely, people that actually deliver medical care to people disagree. Here’s what the Children’s Hospital Association had to say:

Their legislation would slash funding for Medicaid, the nation’s largest health care program for children, by one-third, reducing access and coverage for more than 30 million children in the program. Furthermore, the legislation weakens important consumer safeguards, and as a result, millions of children in working families would no longer be assured that their private insurance covers the most basic of services without annual and lifetime limits and regardless of any underlying medical condition. This bill would have devastating consequences for children and families.

In a letter to Senate leaders, the American Medical Association writes:

Similar to proposals that were considered in the Senate in July, we believe the Graham-Cassidy Amendment would result in millions of Americans losing their health insurance coverage, destabilize health insurance markets, and decrease access to affordable coverage and care. We are particularly concerned with provisions that repeal the ACA’s premium tax credits, cost-sharing reductions, small business tax credit, and Medicaid expansion, and that provide inadequate and temporary block grant funds (only through 2026) in lieu of the ACA’s spending on marketplace subsidies and the Medicaid expansion.

Not surprisingly, the Republican replacement is bad for women’s health too. According to Planned Parenthood:

The Graham-Cassidy-Heller proposal includes a provision that would block millions of people from going to Planned Parenthood for preventive care, including birth control, cancer screenings, and STD testing and treatment.

And because Cassidy’s bill would allow states to weaken pre-existing condition coverage and the requirement that insurers cover a set of essential health benefits, coverage of maternity care would be at serious risk. According to an analysis from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities:

While insurers would still be required to offer coverage to people with pre-existing conditions, insurers could charge unaffordable premiums of thousands or tens of thousands of dollars per month, effectively resulting in a coverage denial. Insurers could also offer plans with large benefit gaps. For example, before the ACA introduced the requirement that all plans cover a defined set of basic services, 75 percent of individual market plans excluded maternity coverage, 45 percent excluded substance use treatment, and 38 percent excluded mental health care, according to analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. This would leave many people — especially those with pre-existing conditions — without access to the health services they need.

And let’s not forget public health. The ACA’s Prevention and Public Health Fund (PPHF) has become an absolutely critical source of funding for the nation’s public health agencies. Cassidy’s bill would eliminate that fund. Here’s what the Big Cities Health Coalition, a forum for the country’s largest metropolitan health departments, had to say about the fund’s potential elimination:

Among the programs at risk at the CDC are the 317 Immunization Program, Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Grants, the Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Program, and a host of chronic disease programs. The PPHF provides vital resources to governmental public health at all levels, and its elimination will further erode our fragile health system.

Eliminating public health programs that are now funded by the ACA would seriously undermine the ability of cities and counties to protect and promote health. The loss of hundreds of millions of dollars would hamper efforts to respond to food borne illness outbreaks, prevent emerging infectious diseases like Ebola and Zika, and respond to natural disasters like Hurricanes Irma and Harvey.

And in a letter to senators from the American Public Health Association, Executive Director Georges Benjamin writes:

The Graham-Cassidy plan would also eliminate the Prevention and Public Health Fund, the first and only mandatory funding stream specifically dedicated to public health and prevention activities. The fund has already provided more than $6 billion to support a variety of public health activities in every state including tracking and preventing infectious diseases like the Ebola and Zika viruses, community and clinical prevention programs, preventing childhood lead poisoning and expanding access to childhood immunizations. Eliminating the fund would devastate the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The fund currently makes up 12 percent of CDC’s budget and eliminating this funding stream would force Congress to replace the funding through the regular appropriations process where resources for nondefense discretionary programs are already too low.

Graham-Cassidy-Heller-Johnson is a threat to America’s health. If you’d like to voice your opinion, the American Public Health Association has an easy-to-use template to help you reach your representatives in Congress. For more information on the ACA replacement, NPR has a fantastic explainer.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years. Follow me on Twitter — @kkrisberg.

kkrisberg Wed, 09/20/2017 - 12:20

Categories

Policy

One more GOP “healthcare” bill that would gut Medicaid and wreck individual insurance market

lborkowski — Sun, 17 Sep 2017 13:50:07 +0000

One more GOP “healthcare” bill that would gut Medicaid and wreck individual insurance market

Republican Senators have proposed one more bill to repeal the ACA. The Graham-Cassidy (or Cassidy-Graham) proposal would dramatically shrink the pool of federal money going to healthcare and revise how it’s distributed to states, in a way that is especially damaging to states that accepted the ACA’s Medicaid expansion. They hope to pass this destructive bill before the end of September, due to the upcoming expiration of reconciliation rules that let them pass a healthcare-related bill with votes from 50 Senators and Vice President Mike Pence.

Like Republican bills from earlier in the year, Graham-Cassidy would cap Medicaid spending, which would lead to fewer people having Medicaid coverage and reductions in benefits. It would go even farther than previous bills in ending the ACA’s Medicaid expansion, terminating it completely in 2020. It also keeps earlier bills’ one-year prohibition on reimbursing Planned Parenthood for services it provides Medicaid enrollees, an action that disproportionately harms low-income women. Edwin Park and Matt Broaddus of the Center on Budget and Policy priorities estimate that in 2027 alone, the bill would result in nearly $300 billion less in federal funding relative to current law. This bill wouldn’t just take us back to the bad old days before the ACA; it would fundamentally alter the Medicaid program that has allowed so many millions of children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and low-income seniors access to care they otherwise couldn’t afford.

In the individual market, Graham-Cassidy ends the federal subsidies designed to make insurance affordable for people with incomes under 400% of the poverty level and repeals the individual mandate. It also allows states to rescind the ACA’s prohibition on charging more to enrollees with pre-existing conditions, and to stop requiring plans to include essential health benefits (including prescription drugs and maternity care). Individual insurance policies may still be for sale, but they’ll be completely out of reach for many — not only because subsidies have disappeared and premiums can increase based on an enrollee’s health history, but because scrapping the individual mandate will mean smaller risk pools, which translates to less stability for insurers.

At the same time, the Trump administration’s unwillingness to commit to making necessary payments to insurers has already contributed to higher premiums, and its decisions to slash important advertising and outreach programs are expected to substantially reduce enrollments for 2018. The Trump administration has already harmed the individual market for insurance. Graham-Cassidy will make the situation much worse for all but the youngest, healthiest enrollees — and even they could see their premiums soar if they develop expensive health conditions.

In answer to criticisms about millions of people losing coverage, the bill’s backers point to a pot of federal money that will be divided amongst states. States that expanded Medicaid will see their federal funds plummet, while those that didn’t will get relatively more money — but still far too little to actually solve the uninsurance problem that the ACA did so much to address. And the states wouldn't be required to direct the funds toward increasing coverage for low-income populations.

This is the important thing to keep in mind as Republican Senators push this bill with claims about Obamacare being broken: The ACA wasn’t perfect, but it substantially reduced this country’s shameful rate of uninsurance. Approximately 20 million people gained insurance between 2010 and early 2016, and the newest number from the Census Bureau show that uninsurance continued to decline. Problems with affordability of premiums and deductibles remained, but the majority of people with new ACA marketplace or Medicaid plans were satisfied.

Source: JC Barnett & ER Berchik, US Census Bureau, 2017: http://ow.ly/qjlB30fdsfG

At the moment, Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) and Patty Murray (D-Wash.) are working on legislation to stabilize the ACA, instead of creating a situation that’s far worse than what we had prior to 2010. They've held hearings and delved into details about insurance markets. This is a much more responsible approach than eviscerating Medicaid and destabilizing the individual market.

Another thing to monitor is whether Senate Republicans wait for a Congressional Budget Office score before rushing to vote on a bill that imperils millions of people’s access to health insurance. CBO scores of Republican proposals earlier this year have calculated that they’d cause more than 20 million people to lose coverage over the next decade. (Specifically, by 2026 the American Health Care Act would have led to 23 million more uninsured and the Better Care Reconciliation Act to 22 million fewer with coverage.) Graham-Cassidy is somewhere between those proposals and an ACA repeal bill that was passed by a Republican Congress and vetoed by President Obama, which CBO calculated would lead to 32 million more uninsured by 2026 relative to current law.

Failing to wait for a CBO score before holding a vote is irresponsible in the extreme — but, alas, something we’ve seen already from this Congress. With or without a CBO score, a vote on Graham-Cassidy is very likely to happen in the next two weeks. That doesn’t leave much time for Senators to hear from their constituents what they think about a bill that will affect so many millions of people.

Another new study finds the Affordable Care Act is not a ‘job killer’ (8/30/17)
Relief and trepidation on healthcare (7/31/17)
Latest GOPcare bill brings back hated pre-ACA conditions while still slashing Medicaid (7/16/17)
By 2036, Senate bill would cut Medicaid by more than one-third (7/5/17)
GOP health care bills would cripple public health opioid response: ‘We’d essentially be putting up the white flag’ (6/30/17)
Five key points about Medicaid and GOPcare (6/30/17)
We’re close to universal insurance coverage for kids. The GOP health care bills would reverse that. (6/23/17)
Senate health care bill won’t improve the nation’s health, but it will make rich people richer (6/22/17)
The appalling process of GOPcare (6/19/17)
Report: House GOP health care bill would spark job losses, economic downturns across the country (6/16/17)
Congressional Budget Office confirms latest GOPcare bill disastrous for health (5/29/17)
GOPcare passes House, threatens healthcare of millions (5/8/17)
The ACA marketplace is beginning to stabilize. But it can’t withstand federal sabotage. (4/21/17)
Playing politics with women’s health (4/3/17)
The ACA is safe for now, but it’s still very much in danger (3/25/17)
Insurance losses under proposed ACA replacement a matter of life and death (3/15/17)
AHCA would slash Medicaid while giving tax cuts to the rich (3/13/17)

lborkowski Sun, 09/17/2017 - 09:50

Tags

Categories

CHIP provides health insurance to nearly 9 million kids. Its funding expires on Sept. 30.

kkrisberg — Fri, 15 Sep 2017 16:15:51 +0000

CHIP provides health insurance to nearly 9 million kids. Its funding expires on Sept. 30.

Earlier this week, members of the Senate Finance Committee announced an agreement to extend funding for the Children’s Health Insurance Program. The announcement had been anxiously awaited by families and advocates across the nation, as the program’s federal funding expires in about two weeks. The agreement is good news, but coverage for CHIP’s 8.9 million children isn’t safe just yet.

According to reports, the agreement would extend CHIP’s funding for five years — a win for advocates worried that lawmakers might propose another two-year extension as it did in 2015. The agreement would also maintain the Affordable Care Act’s enhanced CHIP matching rate — a measure that boosted the federal share by 23 percent — for another two years and then begin a phase-down to pre-ACA matching rates. CHIP currently provides nearly 9 million U.S. children with timely access to medical care, covering kids whose families make too much to qualify for Medicaid but not enough to access affordable coverage in the private sector.

While news of the Senate CHIP agreement is encouraging, there are still big questions and concerns. Senate Finance Committee leaders — Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, and Ron Wyden, D-Ore. — haven’t yet identified how they’ll offset the cost of re-funding CHIP, which is between $5 billion and $10 billion. That omission has some worried that CHIP funding could come at the expense of other critical health funding. Two other big questions: Will members of the House agree to a five-year CHIP extension? And will lawmakers attempt to attach CHIP funding to more divisive measures that could hinder its quick passage?

And quickness is key. Most states set their CHIP budgets months ago, and most made those budgets assuming federal lawmakers would reauthorize CHIP funding at its enhanced rate, according to a recent Kaiser Family Foundation survey of state Medicaid officials. That means if Congress doesn’t follow through on CHIP funding, states will face serious funding shortfalls and officials will be forced to find ways to make up the money gap (not likely) or reduce costs (such as cutting back on services and eligibility). The Kaiser survey found that of the 42 states that provided information on when they will exhaust their current CHIP funds, 10 states said funding will likely run out by the end of 2017. Some states, the survey noted, have statutes on the book that require officials to shut down their CHIP programs if federal lawmakers stop funding CHIP.

Just the fact that lawmakers have allowed CHIP’s funding reauthorization to come down to the wire is unprecedented, said Carrie Fitzgerald, vice president for Children’s Health Programs at First Focus.

“We were hoping and working hard to try to get CHIP done early in the year, but the larger health care debate took precedent and it was impossible to get this going,” Fitzgerald told me. “But it does seem that (lawmakers) know this has to get done and that it will get done. …Still, it’s tough on states. They’re doing the best they can to keep things moving smoothly, but everyone needs to see this done.”

Echoing the Kaiser findings, Fitzgerald said she hadn’t heard from any state officials worried about running out of CHIP funds on Oct. 1 — as far as she knew, none were planning to shut down their CHIP programs or scale back either. In fact, she said state CHIP officials are “trying to walk a fine line” — they want to raise awareness about CHIP’s importance, but they don’t want to worry families during CHIP’s crucial fall enrollment period. But if Congress doesn’t act by the Sept. 30 expiration date, she said it would force states to start considering their options, none of which bode well for children’s health coverage.

“There isn’t another option that’s as affordable and child-specific as CHIP,” Fitzgerald said.

The consequences of Congress’ inaction vary depending on how a state organizes its CHIP program. According to the National Academy for State Health Policy, the ACA requires that Medicaid expansion CHIP programs maintain eligibility levels for kids through 2019, regardless of federal funding. However, the 42 states that run separate CHIP programs can scale back enrollment if federal funds cease.

Eva Marie Stahl, director of the Children’s Health Initiative at Community Catalyst, said if children did begin to lose CHIP coverage, some might find coverage in Medicaid and some may be able to access employer-sponsored insurance (though employer coverage is generally more expensive than CHIP for many working families). Families who lose CHIP could turn to the ACA marketplace, but Stahl said many would face another hurdle known as the “family glitch.” The way the ACA was written, part of eligibility for marketplace subsidies is whether a family has access to affordable employer-based coverage. However, the ACA’s definition of “affordable” employer coverage is based on the cost of covering the individual, not the whole family — hence, the family glitch.

“There’s no question that Congress should move swiftly to refund CHIP and they should cleanly extend it for five years at a minimum — especially with so much uncertainty around other forms of health coverage” Stahl told me. “This program is 20 years old, enjoys bipartisan support and works well. It’s good for keeping children healthy and it’s a really important program for helping working families.”

Across the U.S., more than one in three children are covered by either Medicaid or CHIP — in fact, the two programs have helped drive the children’s uninsured rate to record lows. (The newest Census data puts the 2016 children’s uninsured rate at 5.4 percent.) Medicaid and CHIP typically offer more comprehensive children’s coverage than private insurance, such as covering dental care and myriad services for children with special health care needs. Research finds that children with Medicaid or CHIP coverage have better access to primary care and preventive care than uninsured children and fare just as well as on those two indicators as privately insured kids.

Dennis Cooley, a general pediatrician in Topeka, Kansas, for 37 years, said about 30 percent of his patients get coverage through the state’s combined Medicaid/CHIP program, KanCare. Statewide, more than 73,000 Kansas children get their coverage thanks to CHIP. For many low- and moderate-income Kansas families, CHIP provides affordable care that’s also high-quality care, said Cooley, who chairs the American Academy of Pediatrics’ Subcommittee on Access. For example, CHIP follows Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic and Treatment guidelines, which ensure children get appropriate medical and preventive care. In other words, CHIP is designed specifically to support the needs of children, whereas private insurance is typically designed for a more general population.

Cooley said he’s been traveling to Washington, D.C., and talking with legislators about the importance of CHIP for years now — and he agrees that CHIP does enjoy bipartisan support. But he’s still worried.

“Each time, legislators say ‘no one’s against CHIP’ or ‘don’t worry,’” he told me. “But then politics gets involved.”

CHIP’s federal funding officially expires on Sept. 30. For more on CHIP, visit First Focus.

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years. Follow me on Twitter — @kkrisberg.

kkrisberg Fri, 09/15/2017 - 12:15

Tags

Affordable Care Act

government

healthcare

Public Health - General

ACA

Child health

Children's Health Insurance Program

Categories

Nothing is more important than helping our children and elderly with healthcare. Great program!

Occupational Health News Roundup

kkrisberg — Tue, 12 Sep 2017 19:30:59 +0000

Occupational Health News Roundup

At the Huffington Post, Dave Jamieson reports that labor unions are stepping up to help protect increasingly vulnerable immigrant workers from deportation. In fact, Jamieson writes that in many instances, labor unions have become “de facto immigrants rights groups,” educating workers on their rights and teaching immigrants how to best handle encounters with immigration officials.

Jamieson’s story begins:

Yahaira Burgos was fearing the worst when her husband, Juan Vivares, reported to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office in lower Manhattan in March. Vivares, who fled Colombia and entered the U.S. illegally in 2011, had recently been given a deportation order. Rather than hide, he showed up at the ICE office with Burgos and his lawyer to continue to press his case for asylum.

Vivares, 29, was detained for deportation. That’s when Burgos’ union sprang into action.

Prepared for Vivares’ detention, members of the Service Employees International Union Local 32BJ gathered for a rally outside the ICE office that afternoon, demanding his release. Union leadership appealed to New York’s congressional delegation, enlisting Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D) to reach out to ICE leadership. The union president even disseminated the name and phone number for the ICE officer handling Vivares’ deportation and urged allies to call him directly.

“I was very lucky to have a union,” said Burgos, a 39-year-old native of the Dominican Republic who works as a doorwoman on the Upper East Side. “They moved very fast. They moved every politician and every union member. ... If it were not for the union he would be deported.”

Vivares is now at home with Burgos and their 19-month-old son, having been granted a stay of deportation as the court considers his motion to reopen his asylum case. Although he’s far from being in the clear, his lawyer, Rebecca Press, says the union’s quick response was critical to keeping Vivares in the U.S. for now. “I do believe that their being able to reach the upper echelons of Congress gave us a window of time,” she said.

Vivares’ case provides a vivid example of the gritty work unions are doing to protect immigrant members and their families vulnerable to deportation in the Trump era.

Read the full story at the Huffington Post.

In other news:

Charleston Gazette-Mail: Ken Ward Jr. reports that Trump intends to chose David Zatezalo, the former chief executive of the coal company Rhino Resources, to head up the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Zatezalo was a top executive at Rhino when MSHA cited the company for a number of health and safety violations, including two “pattern of violations” letters. In 2011, MSHA took the “unusual” action of seeking a court injunction against Rhino after the agency discovered that miners were being tipped off about the timing of MSHA inspections. In a related article in the Huffington Post, Dave Jamieson wrote: “If he’s confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Zatezalo would be just the latest business-friendly official installed in Trump’s deregulation-happy administration. And like many of the appointees before him, Zatezalo has a resume that appears better suited to an industry trade group than a watchdog government agency.”

Sacramento Bee: Marjie Lundstrom reports that a year after 26-year-old Abraham Nicholas Garza was crushed to death at a Sacramento Goodwill outlet store, the nonprofit is facing new lawsuits and heightened scrutiny regarding its worker safety practices. In particular, California’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health opened three more investigations into safety issues at three Goodwill locations in the region. Among the lawsuits is one brought by Dave Goudie, a commercial truck driver who witnessed Garza’s death and had repeatedly warned Goodwill managers about the store’s hazardous work conditions. Goudie is suing Goodwill, his former employer, for defamation and retaliation. In the wake of Garza’s death, Goodwill was issued six violations and more than $106,000 in fines — the highest OSHA penalty ever issued against a Goodwill operation nationwide.

Vox: Alexia Fernandez Campbell reports that in the wake of Hurricane Harvey, unauthorized workers will likely be “desperately needed” to rebuild Houston and the surrounding areas, even as Texas lawmakers are cracking down on undocumented residents and making it harder for them to live and work in the state. Campbell noted that after Hurricane Katrina, undocumented workers did the “dirtiest jobs” during the rebuilding effort, making an average of $10 an hour; overall, undocumented immigrants made up about 25 percent of construction workers after Katrina. However, the post-Katrina situation was also ripe for worker exploitation. Campbell writes: “Federal contractors found themselves in a situation where they could pay workers little money to do dangerous work with little federal oversight. The Department of Labor also temporarily lifted worksite safety enforcement actions against employers in hurricane-affected areas. As a result, undocumented workers were far less likely to get the wages they were promised.”

Los Angeles Times: Matt Hansen writes that years after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, “the list of the fallen continues to grow as police officers, firefighters, first responders and recovery workers succumb to illnesses linked to their work in the aftermath of the attacks.” Yesterday, he reported, a memorial on Long Island, New York, was dedicated to those who died on Sept. 11 as well as to those who’ve died from response-related illnesses. As of June, the World Trade Center Health Program had more than 67,000 responders and 12,000 attack survivors enrolled; since the program began in 2011, more than 1,300 enrollees have died, though not all deaths were related to the attack. Hansen writes: "John Feal, who heads the FealGood Foundation, a nonprofit that advocates for first responders, worries that there are still too many responders and survivors who aren’t aware of the federal programs. ‘The reality is that more and more people are getting sick and dying,’ he said. He is particularly concerned about the coming emergence of asbestos cases, which he noted can take up to 20 years to appear.”

Kim Krisberg is a freelance public health writer living in Austin, Texas, and has been writing about public health for 15 years. Follow me on Twitter — @kkrisberg.

kkrisberg Tue, 09/12/2017 - 15:30

Tags

Occup Health News Roundup

occupational fatalities

Occupational Health & Safety

OSHA