enlarge How rude, to show up like that without an invitation! I am so ashamed to be associated… with these WONDERFUL, BRAVE PEOPLE!!!! Occupy Wall Street protesters took a field trip from Zuccotti Park on Saturday morning, all the way to the wealthy suburban enclave of New Canaan, Conn., where they took their anger at income and tax disparity to GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s front lawn. “In the land of the free they tax me but not G.E.!” read the invitation to protesters to take an hour bus ride to Immelt’s family home. “General Electric made billions last year; they paid no taxes, outsourced thousands of jobs, and got over $3 billion in tax refunds! Join us on a free bus trip to G.E’s CEO’s front lawn to see how our friends in the 1% live.” A crowd of about 100 protesters, both from New York and local offshoot Occupy New Haven, spent the afternoon standing outside Immelt’s 6-bedroom, 10-bathroom, $5.25 million home. Photos from local news site New Canaan Patch show a police officer guarding Immelt’s gates while protesters hold placards reading “Mr. Immelt, Meet the 99%” and “Jobs Not Bailouts”.
Continue reading …
enlarge How rude, to show up like that without an invitation! I am so ashamed to be associated… with these WONDERFUL, BRAVE PEOPLE!!!! Occupy Wall Street protesters took a field trip from Zuccotti Park on Saturday morning, all the way to the wealthy suburban enclave of New Canaan, Conn., where they took their anger at income and tax disparity to GE CEO Jeff Immelt’s front lawn. “In the land of the free they tax me but not G.E.!” read the invitation to protesters to take an hour bus ride to Immelt’s family home. “General Electric made billions last year; they paid no taxes, outsourced thousands of jobs, and got over $3 billion in tax refunds! Join us on a free bus trip to G.E’s CEO’s front lawn to see how our friends in the 1% live.” A crowd of about 100 protesters, both from New York and local offshoot Occupy New Haven, spent the afternoon standing outside Immelt’s 6-bedroom, 10-bathroom, $5.25 million home. Photos from local news site New Canaan Patch show a police officer guarding Immelt’s gates while protesters hold placards reading “Mr. Immelt, Meet the 99%” and “Jobs Not Bailouts”.
Continue reading …
Chef accuses ministers of jeopardising progress made in school dinner halls Jamie Oliver fears the school meals revolution he kickstarted is in danger of unravelling because ministers are ignoring research showing that nutritious lunches improve learning. In an interview with the Guardian, the celebrity chef has accused the education secretary, Michael Gove, and the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, of putting at risk the changes that happened after his 2005 Channel 4 series, Jamie’s School Dinners . Some of Gove’s decisions on school meals have led to unease among health and education campaigners. Gove has ended the school lunch grant as a separate source of funding and exempted academies from the nutritional standards for all other state schools that Labour introduced after Oliver’s programmes highlighted the poor quality of much school food. Oliver said: “Honestly, I’m very worried. I’ve had a couple of very cordial, interesting meetings with the secretary of state for education and although I would love to believe that Mr Gove has school food high on his agenda, I’ve not heard anything so far worth celebrating. “I’m sure he realises that there are clear benefits to having good food in school: it improves a child’s behaviour, willingness to learn and concentration at school, and that in turn helps children to achieve more and perform better. “You would have to be an idiot to ignore all of the academic research that’s been published to support these things, but still I don’t see him or his ministerial colleagues in health actually doing anything to ensure that the improvements we have made over the last six years remain in place and are built upon – instead the progress we’ve made seems to be at risk.” Oliver added: “I used to have similar rants about the previous government so I’m absolutely not siding with one political party. In my experience forward-thinking politicians are a rare breed.” Asked if the government’s decisions were due to the spending squeeze or ideology, Oliver replied: “I think it’s a bit of both but as anyone in this area knows, we have to invest now so that we don’t cripple the NHS or destroy the health of our kids later on.” Given obesity already costs the NHS an estimated £4bn a year, Oliver added, “we simply can’t afford to cut costs in prevention work now because we will have an even bigger bill in the future. It’s like any business: you have to invest in the short term to see a longer-term benefit.” In a new eight-point action plan for extending schools’ influence over children’s eating habits and knowledge of food, Oliver asks ministers to apply the nutritional standards to all schools and says “it would be incredibly disappointing and counterproductive not to make them mandatory for new academies too”. Academies currently teach almost 1.2 million pupils. The manifesto says: “If the government wants all schools to become academies in the long term, the reality is we risk losing the legislation that has made a difference as well as the benefits gained from raising nutritional standards.” Oliver also suggests introducing a new school food premium, which would give schools direct payments for increasing the number of pupils having school lunches. About 3 million of England’s 7 million primary and secondary pupils eat them. Charlie Powell of the Children’s Food Campaign said: “We are unhappy that the school lunch grant has been amalgamated into the overall education budget because it means schools can spend it on anything they like, rather than increasing uptake of school meals.” But Judy Hargadon, chief executive of the School Food Trust (SFT), which helps schools improve take-up of meals, said she feared Oliver’s idea could demotivate schools that faced the toughest task in persuading pupils to use the canteen regularly. The Department for Education (DfE) released a letter Gove wrote to Oliver in August after they met, in which he said “I very much share your views about the importance of providing children and young people with healthy school food and about the benefits this brings”, and promised “the government will continue to support and encourage schools to this end and support the improvements that have been achieved in recent years in schools food provision and food education”. He noted “with interest” the school food premium idea and has asked DfE officials “to discuss with the SFT how such an initiative could work in reality and how it would fit in alongside its ongoing work”. School meals Schools Children Health Jamie Oliver Food & drink Chefs Health policy Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Chef accuses ministers of jeopardising progress made in school dinner halls Jamie Oliver fears the school meals revolution he kickstarted is in danger of unravelling because ministers are ignoring research showing that nutritious lunches improve learning. In an interview with the Guardian, the celebrity chef has accused the education secretary, Michael Gove, and the health secretary, Andrew Lansley, of putting at risk the changes that happened after his 2005 Channel 4 series, Jamie’s School Dinners . Some of Gove’s decisions on school meals have led to unease among health and education campaigners. Gove has ended the school lunch grant as a separate source of funding and exempted academies from the nutritional standards for all other state schools that Labour introduced after Oliver’s programmes highlighted the poor quality of much school food. Oliver said: “Honestly, I’m very worried. I’ve had a couple of very cordial, interesting meetings with the secretary of state for education and although I would love to believe that Mr Gove has school food high on his agenda, I’ve not heard anything so far worth celebrating. “I’m sure he realises that there are clear benefits to having good food in school: it improves a child’s behaviour, willingness to learn and concentration at school, and that in turn helps children to achieve more and perform better. “You would have to be an idiot to ignore all of the academic research that’s been published to support these things, but still I don’t see him or his ministerial colleagues in health actually doing anything to ensure that the improvements we have made over the last six years remain in place and are built upon – instead the progress we’ve made seems to be at risk.” Oliver added: “I used to have similar rants about the previous government so I’m absolutely not siding with one political party. In my experience forward-thinking politicians are a rare breed.” Asked if the government’s decisions were due to the spending squeeze or ideology, Oliver replied: “I think it’s a bit of both but as anyone in this area knows, we have to invest now so that we don’t cripple the NHS or destroy the health of our kids later on.” Given obesity already costs the NHS an estimated £4bn a year, Oliver added, “we simply can’t afford to cut costs in prevention work now because we will have an even bigger bill in the future. It’s like any business: you have to invest in the short term to see a longer-term benefit.” In a new eight-point action plan for extending schools’ influence over children’s eating habits and knowledge of food, Oliver asks ministers to apply the nutritional standards to all schools and says “it would be incredibly disappointing and counterproductive not to make them mandatory for new academies too”. Academies currently teach almost 1.2 million pupils. The manifesto says: “If the government wants all schools to become academies in the long term, the reality is we risk losing the legislation that has made a difference as well as the benefits gained from raising nutritional standards.” Oliver also suggests introducing a new school food premium, which would give schools direct payments for increasing the number of pupils having school lunches. About 3 million of England’s 7 million primary and secondary pupils eat them. Charlie Powell of the Children’s Food Campaign said: “We are unhappy that the school lunch grant has been amalgamated into the overall education budget because it means schools can spend it on anything they like, rather than increasing uptake of school meals.” But Judy Hargadon, chief executive of the School Food Trust (SFT), which helps schools improve take-up of meals, said she feared Oliver’s idea could demotivate schools that faced the toughest task in persuading pupils to use the canteen regularly. The Department for Education (DfE) released a letter Gove wrote to Oliver in August after they met, in which he said “I very much share your views about the importance of providing children and young people with healthy school food and about the benefits this brings”, and promised “the government will continue to support and encourage schools to this end and support the improvements that have been achieved in recent years in schools food provision and food education”. He noted “with interest” the school food premium idea and has asked DfE officials “to discuss with the SFT how such an initiative could work in reality and how it would fit in alongside its ongoing work”. School meals Schools Children Health Jamie Oliver Food & drink Chefs Health policy Denis Campbell guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership, Guardian/ICM poll shows Conservative rebels pushing for an in-or-out referendum on Europe are riding the tide of public opinion, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership, and by a substantial nine-point margin respondents say they would use it to vote for UK withdrawal. Forty-nine per cent of voters would vote to get Britain out of Europe, as against just 40% who prefer to stay in. There is a clear majority for staging a referendum on Britain’s relationship with Europe in each of the social classes and across the regions and nations of the UK. Men and women are similarly keen, as are supporters of all three main parties, although rather more Conservative (71%) than Labour voters (65%) are calling for a poll. Overall, just 23% of all voters say they would be against a vote that “could ask the public whether the UK should remain in the European Union or pull out instead”. On the crunch question of which way they would vote, there are marked differences across the age range, and by party support. Where just 28% of the youngest voters aged 18-24 would vote to quit the EU, 63% of those aged 65+ would do the same. An outright majority of Tory voters – some 56% – would vote to leave, as against 34% who would prefer to stay in. By contrast among Labour and Liberal Democrats, there are majorities for staying in Europe, although there are also sizeable minorities among both parties’ supporters – of 38% and 44% respectively – who indicate that they would vote to get out. As David Cameron stands up to make the case against staging a referendum, he will argue that regardless of the public’s feelings on Europe, the issue is not currently their most pressing priority. Past polling evidence bears that out, with just 1% of the electorate having told ICM in the runup to the last general election that Europe was the most important question in how they would cast their vote. But Monday’s poll contains signs that the Euro-sceptical side of public opinion is firmer than the Euro-enthusiast element. The 40% who would vote to stay in split relatively equally, between 23% who say they would definitely vote to stay in and 18% who say they would only probably do so. Among the 49% who want to quit, by contrast, 34% describe their position as “definite”, more than twice as many as the 15% who say they would “probably” vote to leave. The 49%-40% split for pulling out of the EU represents a total turnaround in public opinion, as compared to a decade ago. When ICM asked a slightly differently worded question in May 2001, by 68% to 19% the public indicated Britain should remain a member, a huge 49% lead for the pro-Europeans. And the most Euro-sceptical segment of opinion has grown rapidly: where 34% of all respondents now say they would “definitely” vote for pulling out, in 2001 just 13% said they were “strongly” in favour of pulling out. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 21-23 October 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. European Union House of Commons Liberal-Conservative coalition Europe Conservatives Tom Clark guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership, Guardian/ICM poll shows Conservative rebels pushing for an in-or-out referendum on Europe are riding the tide of public opinion, according to a Guardian/ICM poll. Some 70% of voters want a vote on Britain’s EU membership, and by a substantial nine-point margin respondents say they would use it to vote for UK withdrawal. Forty-nine per cent of voters would vote to get Britain out of Europe, as against just 40% who prefer to stay in. There is a clear majority for staging a referendum on Britain’s relationship with Europe in each of the social classes and across the regions and nations of the UK. Men and women are similarly keen, as are supporters of all three main parties, although rather more Conservative (71%) than Labour voters (65%) are calling for a poll. Overall, just 23% of all voters say they would be against a vote that “could ask the public whether the UK should remain in the European Union or pull out instead”. On the crunch question of which way they would vote, there are marked differences across the age range, and by party support. Where just 28% of the youngest voters aged 18-24 would vote to quit the EU, 63% of those aged 65+ would do the same. An outright majority of Tory voters – some 56% – would vote to leave, as against 34% who would prefer to stay in. By contrast among Labour and Liberal Democrats, there are majorities for staying in Europe, although there are also sizeable minorities among both parties’ supporters – of 38% and 44% respectively – who indicate that they would vote to get out. As David Cameron stands up to make the case against staging a referendum, he will argue that regardless of the public’s feelings on Europe, the issue is not currently their most pressing priority. Past polling evidence bears that out, with just 1% of the electorate having told ICM in the runup to the last general election that Europe was the most important question in how they would cast their vote. But Monday’s poll contains signs that the Euro-sceptical side of public opinion is firmer than the Euro-enthusiast element. The 40% who would vote to stay in split relatively equally, between 23% who say they would definitely vote to stay in and 18% who say they would only probably do so. Among the 49% who want to quit, by contrast, 34% describe their position as “definite”, more than twice as many as the 15% who say they would “probably” vote to leave. The 49%-40% split for pulling out of the EU represents a total turnaround in public opinion, as compared to a decade ago. When ICM asked a slightly differently worded question in May 2001, by 68% to 19% the public indicated Britain should remain a member, a huge 49% lead for the pro-Europeans. And the most Euro-sceptical segment of opinion has grown rapidly: where 34% of all respondents now say they would “definitely” vote for pulling out, in 2001 just 13% said they were “strongly” in favour of pulling out. ICM Research interviewed a random sample of 1,003 adults aged 18+ by telephone on 21-23 October 2011. Interviews were conducted across the country and the results have been weighted to the profile of all adults. ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. European Union House of Commons Liberal-Conservative coalition Europe Conservatives Tom Clark guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Time Warner Customer Service Rep Told to Stop Giving CPR to Dying Co-Worker and Get Back to Work
October 24, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media This is just really shameful — Boss Told Me To Stop Giving Dying Co-Worker CPR, Says Service Rep : Last month, a Time Warner Cable customer service rep died at her desk. After any unexpected death, people searched for answers, explanations, someone to blame. But in this case, there may have actually been something foul afoot. A local news station reports that after a co-worker began giving CPR to 67-year-old Julia Nelson, a supervisor allegedly told her to stop and “get back on the phone and take care of customers.” Nelson slumped at her desk at the Time Warner Call Center in Garfield Heights, Ohio, and wasn’t breathing by the time paramedics arrived. But before that happened, a co-worker rushed over and began administering CPR, the woman told WOIO, only to be asked to stop. Employees at the scene have confirmed this report. The woman was also told later by another supervisor that she could be “held liable if something goes wrong.” Ohio has a “Good Samaritan” law on the books, however, which protects bystanders who provide emergency aid from being sued for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Thanks to this legal immunity, many employees have used CPR to save co-workers lives without any risk to themselves. Last year, two co-workers resuscitated 55-year-old Brenda Halliburton after she collapsed at her desk at American Baptist Churches. One performed CPR, while the other gave her a jolt with an Automated External Defibrillator. In July, Alex Molina saw his co-worker at Yuma Proving Grounds slumped in his carseat. Thinking he was sleeping, Molina pulled over to give him a joking scare, but ended up giving him CPR until the paramedics arrived. Unfortunately, Nelson didn’t receive similar care. Time Warner released a statement, denying any wrongdoing: “Time Warner responded appropriately to a medical emergency. Our company has procedures in place to respond to emergencies. We are saddened by the loss of one of our employees who was a co-worker and a friend. Our thoughts are with the family during this difficult time.” Police are reviewing the incident, according to WOIO.
Continue reading …Time Warner Customer Service Rep Told to Stop Giving CPR to Dying Co-Worker and Get Back to Work
October 24, 2011 No Comment
Click here to view this media This is just really shameful — Boss Told Me To Stop Giving Dying Co-Worker CPR, Says Service Rep : Last month, a Time Warner Cable customer service rep died at her desk. After any unexpected death, people searched for answers, explanations, someone to blame. But in this case, there may have actually been something foul afoot. A local news station reports that after a co-worker began giving CPR to 67-year-old Julia Nelson, a supervisor allegedly told her to stop and “get back on the phone and take care of customers.” Nelson slumped at her desk at the Time Warner Call Center in Garfield Heights, Ohio, and wasn’t breathing by the time paramedics arrived. But before that happened, a co-worker rushed over and began administering CPR, the woman told WOIO, only to be asked to stop. Employees at the scene have confirmed this report. The woman was also told later by another supervisor that she could be “held liable if something goes wrong.” Ohio has a “Good Samaritan” law on the books, however, which protects bystanders who provide emergency aid from being sued for unintentional injury or wrongful death. Thanks to this legal immunity, many employees have used CPR to save co-workers lives without any risk to themselves. Last year, two co-workers resuscitated 55-year-old Brenda Halliburton after she collapsed at her desk at American Baptist Churches. One performed CPR, while the other gave her a jolt with an Automated External Defibrillator. In July, Alex Molina saw his co-worker at Yuma Proving Grounds slumped in his carseat. Thinking he was sleeping, Molina pulled over to give him a joking scare, but ended up giving him CPR until the paramedics arrived. Unfortunately, Nelson didn’t receive similar care. Time Warner released a statement, denying any wrongdoing: “Time Warner responded appropriately to a medical emergency. Our company has procedures in place to respond to emergencies. We are saddened by the loss of one of our employees who was a co-worker and a friend. Our thoughts are with the family during this difficult time.” Police are reviewing the incident, according to WOIO.
Continue reading …
MSNBC's Joe Scarborough continued his almost relentless attacks on Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain Monday this time also throwing an unnecessary barb at former Alaska governor Sarah Palin. When the “Morning Joe” discussion turned to what the Cain campaign is doing in Iowa to prepare for the upcoming caucuses, the supposedly conservative co-host said to Time magazine's Mark Halperin, “You may want to tell him next time you see him to read Foreign Affairs and the New York Times” (video follows with transcribed highlights and commentary): “I'm dead serious,” Scarborough continued. “If Sarah Palin had read Foreign Affairs and the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal and actually studied up on foreign policy, might have helped.” In one breath, Scarborough bashed two Tea Party favorites. Seemingly feeling the need to defend Cain from Scarborough's attacks, Halperin responded, “He is studying up on foreign policy.” But the former Republican Congressman turned MSNBC commentator was having none of it. “He needs to study fast. It's not cute.” “Ignorance is not cute,” the so-called conservative continued. “I guess what I'm saying is, you know, you can spend all the money on grassroots campaigns that you want. If you still can't answer basic questions on foreign policy and keeping America safe, it does you no good.” Regular viewers know that Scarborough believes the only serious GOP candidate is Mitt Romney, and that everyone else currently in the field is a joke that Republican primary voters will not support. As such, when you see attacks like this by him on such an accomplished individual like Cain, you wonder if he's in Wall Street parlance “talking his book.” For those unfamiliar, this means Scarborough's constantly bashing all the other candidates to prove he's right. Makes you hope someone other than Romney wins just to prove Scarborough wrong.
Continue reading …