enlarge Above: How Republicans imagine every town in Massachusetts. One of the conservative baloney machine’s greatest triumphs has been to convince a sizable portion of the country that states such as Massachusetts (which I proudly call home) are decrepit urine-soaked wastelands whose streets are overflowing with junkies and hookers living inside million-dollar public housing units that are paid for on the backs of the few hard-working Real Americans who haven’t fled for the greener pastures of Rick Perry’s free market paradise down South. You’ve probably heard quite a bit about the ” Texas Miracle ” in the press a lot and I’m sure you’ll be surprised to know that it’s a longhorn-sized pile of poop. First, let’s just consider that the unemployment rate in the free-market paradise of Texas stands at a freedom-y 8.4 percent. For contrast, the unemployment rate in my socialist hellhole of Massachusetts stands at communist-like 7.6 percent. Poverty rates are also intriguing, since 10 percent of Massachusetts residents live below the poverty line while 15.8 percent of Texas residents live below the poverty line. But that’s not all! My evil job-killing state has the lowest rate of uninsured people in the country , at 5.3 percent. Texas, on the other hand, has left a whopping 27.1 percent of its population uninsured. I’m not sure what’s quite so miraculous about not having access to health care but then again I’m just a commie pinko. What the hell do I know? And there are other things too. Like, education. In Massachusetts, 85 percent of eighth graders scored at or above basic in the National Assessment of Educational Progress math exam, while 52 percent scored at or above proficient. Texas’ eighth graders scored 78 percent at basic, 36 percent at proficient. You see a similar trend for reading: 83 percent of Massachusetts eighth graders scored at basic in reading, with 43 percent at proficient. In Texas, 73 percent of eighth graders scored at basic in reading while 27 percent scored at proficient. “OK, OK,” you say. “So Massachusetts has a better economy, education and health care than Texas. But all those big government programs are surely sapping Massholes of their precious moral values and leading to crime running rampant in the streets and a breakdown in family values! DON’T YOU READ DAVID BROOKS !?!!?!” Yeah, sure, let’s go there. Violent crime rate in Massachusetts is 432 per 100,000 people. In Texas it’s 511 per 100,000 people. In Massachusetts the murder rate is 2.6 per 100,000 people. In Texas it’s 5.4 per 100,000 people. The Massachusetts divorce rate is 1.8 per 1,000 people. The Texas divorce rate is 5.4 per 1,000. The teen pregnancy rate in Massachusetts is 49 per 1,000 women while in Texas it’s 88 per 1,000 women. The point of this post isn’t to dump on Texas (although I admit I’m not fond of many of the politicians it elects), nor is it to insist that everyone in America become a Massachusetts liberal like me (though it would make me feel a lot saner). The point is to provide some, oh, I don’t know, reality to claims that my state is a decaying crap dive that people are fleeing in droves to escape tyrannical taxation and deteriorating standards of living. In fact, it’s actually a pretty nice place to live. Feel free to share this with your conservative relatives the next time you hear them ranting about how awful Massachusetts is — it may not change their minds but it may at least get them to realize that Rush Limbaugh may not exactly know what he’s talking about. And that’s good enough for me at this point.
Continue reading …This is kind of an insane conversation to have. Businesses are essentially arguing that it’s okay to kill people if they can also hire people . That’s really what this “job-killing regulation” debate is all about. Let’s be clear: One side is arguing that job creation is such an absolute good, businesses should be allowed to kill people. The other side is saying, “Please don’t let them kill us.” Which side has the stronger moral position? “My view is that the Republican claim that ‘job-killing regulation’ is a redundancy is as ridiculous as the left-wing view that ‘job-killing regulation’ is an oxymoron,” said Cass Sunstein, head of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs. “Both are silly political claims that have no place in a serious discussion.” Notice the sleight of hand there? Leftists are arguing for the very existence of our planet, not that regulations don’t ever cost jobs. The “silly political claim” is that it’s now perfectly okay to value money over human life. Remember, this is not simply a bottom line-oriented private business cheerleading this principle — it’s the U.S. government, who’s supposed to be protecting the rights of its citizens. And it’s not just silly, but plain immoral to imply that letting businesses pollute our air and water is the best way to create jobs. If all we really care about is job creation, why not legalize drugs? Nope, we can’t have that discussion because it’s not really about jobs. It’s about Republican bullies mowing down a compliant president. I suppose the next move will be to abolish OSHA regulations. The Republicans are lining up citizen protections and knocking them down, one after the other. And a Democratic administration is helping them do it: Do environmental regulations kill jobs? Republicans and business groups say yes, arguing that environmental protection is simply too expensive for a battered economy. They were quick to claim victory Friday after the Obama administration abandoned stricter ozone pollution standards. Many economists agree that regulation comes with undeniable costs that can affect workers. Factories may close because of the high cost of cleanup, or owners may relocate to countries with weaker regulations. But many experts say that the effects should be assessed through a nuanced tally of costs and benefits that takes into account both economic and societal factors. Some argue that the costs can be offset as companies develop cheaper ways to clean up pollutants, and others say that regulation is often blamed for job losses that occur for different reasons, like a stagnant economy. As companies develop new technologies to cope with regulatory requirements, some new jobs are created. The question of just how much environmental regulation hurts jobs is a particularly delicate one as leaders in Washington debate the best ways to address the nation’s stubbornly high unemployment rate. As President Obama prepares for an important speech on Thursday focusing on job creation, Republicans are pushing for a rollback in environmental regulations that they say saddle companies with onerous costs that curtail jobs without leading to significant improvement in environmental or public health. Part of the problem in evaluating the costs of regulation is that there have been few systematic studies of such costs after regulations are imposed. “Regulations are put on the books and largely stay there unexamined,” said Michael Greenstone, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “This is part of the reason that these debates about regulations have a Groundhog’s Day quality to them.” Mr. Greenstone has conducted one of the few studies that actually measure job losses related to environmental rules. In researching the amendments to the Clean Air Act that affected polluting plants from 1972 and 1987, he found that those companies lost almost 600,000 jobs compared with what would have happened without the regulations. But Mr. Greenstone has also conducted research showing that clean air regulations have reduced infant mortality and increased housing prices, and indeed many economists argue that job losses should not be considered in isolation. They say the costs of regulations are dwarfed by the gains in lengthened lives, reduced hospitalizations and other health benefits, and by economic gains like the improvement to the real estate market.
Continue reading …Bavarian beekeepers forced to declare their honey as genetically modified because of contamination from nearby Monsanto crops The European Union’s highest court on Tuesday ruled that honey which contains trace amounts of pollen from genetically modified (GM) corn must be labelled as GM produce and undergo full safety authorisation before it can be sold as food. In what green groups are calling a “groundbreaking” ruling, the decision could force the EU to strengthen its already near-zero tolerance policy on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). Bavarian beekeepers, some 500m from a test field for a modified maize crop developed by Monsanto – one of only two GM crops authorised as safe to be cultivated in Europe – claimed their honey had been “contaminated” by pollen from the plant. The European court of justice found in their favour, a ruling that should offer grounds for the beekeepers to claim compensation in a German court. But the court’s finding also potentially threatens recent EU legislation, introduced in July this year, that permits traces of GMOs in animal feed without a safety review . Mute Schimpf, food campaigner for Friends of the Earth Europe, said that the ruling “would confirm that existing laws allowing traces of unauthorised GM contamination are insufficient and would need revising.” French Green MEP José Bové, an ex-farmer well-known for his destruction of a McDonald’s franchise in the south of France and the uprooting of GM crops in Brazil, said that the only protection farmers can have is for a complete ban on GMOs in Europe. “Beekeepers are powerless to prevent the contamination of their honey by GM pollen, as farmers are for their crops, and thus powerless to prevent the tainting of the foodstuffs they produce and the integrity of their product. “The only sure way to prevent this is by precluding the cultivation of GMOs.” Greenpeace, describing the traces of pollen in the honey as “genetic pollution” said that Monsanto and the Bavarian state should be held liable for the beekeepers’ losses as a result of their product having to be labelled as containing GMOs. However, agricultural specialists criticised the ruling, saying that the decision has no grounding in science. Guy Poppy, the director of the centre for biological sciences at the University of Southampton, told the Guardian: “There is no safety issue. This honey is as safe as any other.” The corn in question is genetically engineered to produce an insecticide that naturally occurs in the soil bacterium Bacillus thuringiensis (BT). The production of this toxin protects the maize plants from European corn borer larvae. “The Monsanto maize is genetically modified to produce the BT protein. But this same protein actually has been regularly used for years as a spray even by organic farmers,” he added. “The consequences of these sorts of ruling is that new methods of plant breeding, whether GM or other forms that are developed, could be thrown out of potential use, making it impossible to innovate.” Vivian Moses, professor of biotechnology at the University of London and the chairwoman of Cropgen, an advisory group on GM foods, said: “These beekeepers believe that there is a sensitivity among consumers of the presence of GM material, that the honey containing GM loses quality. They are just protecting their economic interest. “But scientifically this doesn’t add up to anything, as the crop has been judged as safe for human consumption.” In response to the ruling, the European commission will in two weeks discuss the issue of GMOs and honey with EU member states. According to Brussels, it is likely that the decision will have an impact on the honey into the EU as Europe does not itself produce sufficient quantities for the size of the market. The bloc produces 200,000 tonnes per year and must import an additional 140,000 tonnes. Argentina and China, both GM-friendly countries and the two biggest importers of honey into the EU, are likely to be affected in particular, the commission warned. “The honey is not dangerous. There is no health risk from honey in the EU,” insisted EU consumer protection spokesman, Frédéric Vincent, worried that shoppers might stop buying honey as a result of the news. “It’s an important ruling from the court. I can’t say at this point whether we need to change any laws,” he added. “The contamination is done by the bees themselves. We can’t put GPS tracking on the bees.” GM Farming Food Bees Insects Agriculture Genetics Controversies in science Food & drink Food & drink industry Europe Germany Leigh Phillips guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Yak-42 plane carrying Lokomotiv ice hockey team crashed immediately after takeoff from airport near Yaroslavl A Russian jet carrying a local ice hockey team has crashed while taking off in western Russia, killing 36 people and leaving one critically injured. The Russian emergency situations ministry said the Yak-42 plane crashed immediately after taking off from an airport near the city of Yaroslavl, on the Volga River about 150 miles north-east of Moscow. It said one person survived the crash with grave injuries. The ministry said the plane was carrying the Lokomotiv ice hockey team from Yaroslavl. The team was heading to Minsk, the capital of Belarus, where it was to play Thursday against Dinamo Minsk in the opening game of the season of the Continental Hockey League. The CHL is a league of several ex-Soviet nations. Russia Europe Plane crashes guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Tonight Brian Williams will moderate, along with Politico's John F. Harris, the GOP presidential candidate debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library. If recent performances by the NBC Nightly News anchor are an indication, candidates (particularly those favored by the Tea Party) should recognize his hostility to their agenda and be prepared for a number of topics and questions from the left. Ever since its emergence, Williams has undercut the Tea Party, its champions within the GOP, and its cause of fiscal conservatism. At the same time, Williams has heralded its chief opponent Barack Obama.
Continue reading …On Labor Day, despite all the focus on Jimmy Hoffa’s comments , it was actually Vice President Joe Biden whose speech was the most important one of the day. He gave the type of speech that labor supporters have long wanted to hear from the White House. The speech was fiery and was an accurate portrayal of the struggle that labor faces in the United States. The problem is we should’ve heard this speech from the president and it should’ve been given years ago and been matched with significant action. If the vice president finds him self unemployed in January 2013, this failure might be a key reason as to why.
Continue reading …The mother of a soldier who died in combat in Iraq describes the impact of war since 9/11 on the Native American community of Shiprock, New Mexico Laurence Topham Ed Pilkington
Continue reading …Former financial adviser who drove 23 miles down fast lane of the M5 while twice the drink-drive limit jailed for nine months A woman who drove 23 miles the wrong way along a motorway while twice the drink-drive limit has been jailed for nine months. Deborah Hunt, 43, drove down the fast lane of the M5, dodging oncoming vehicles before coming to a halt on the hard shoulder. Hunt, a mother of three from Langport, Somerset, was sentenced at Bristol crown court after admitting dangerous driving, driving with excess alcohol and driving without insurance. She wept in the dock as Judge Mark Horton said he would be failing in his public duty if he did not jail her immediately for so serious an offence. The court heard that Hunt, an unemployed former financial adviser, was suffering from alcoholism and stress caused by her unemployment and an ongoing battle with her ex-husband over custody of their children. But Horton said it was “unbelievably fortunate” no one had been killed or injured by her as she drove at 60mph after 11pm on 14 July in northern Somerset. The court heard she got on at junction 24 and briefly headed south before stunning other drivers by doing a U-turn and driving north. She was found by police on the hard shoulder near junction 21, struggling to restart the engine of her partner’s Peugeot 806. “You drove for something in excess of 20 miles on the wrong side of the road, causing terror in members of the public lawfully using the motorway to travel in the right direction,” Horton said. “You risked causing massive loss of life and huge destruction of property. “You suffer from a severe illness, alcoholism is a severe illness. It is tragic in one sense that society has forgotten, in its obsession with the damage caused by drugs, how much more damage is caused by alcohol. “It is clear that the combination of the stress and alcoholism you have suffered created an extremely dangerous position, culminating in this offence. “I would be failing in my duty if I did not reflect the seriousness of what you did by imposing an immediate custodial sentence.” Crime Motoring guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Terra Firma chairman files another lawsuit against Citigroup – this time over way it took control of UK music company Guy Hands has launched legal action against Citigroup over the way it wrested control of his former music company EMI seven months ago. Terra Firma, the venture capital firm run by Hands, has filed legal action in the high court seeking to force Citigroup to provide full evidence as to why it took control of EMI in February . The US bank, which supplied Hands with the debt to fund his £4.2bn acquisition of EMI in 2007, took control of the British music company when Terra Firma could no longer support the £3bn Citigroup was still owed. EMI’s board of directors appointed PricewaterhouseCoopers as the independent administrator, which determined Citigroup should take control. A source close to Hands says that the financier has been seeking information from Citi about the grounds under which it was able to exercise taking control as well as the valuation attached to EMI. Hands believes that all payments on debt had been maintained up until Citi took control in February, although EMI was expected to break a test of its banking covenants at the end of the first quarter. A procedural hearing is understood to have taken place on Tuesday, when an application for information was made by lawyers representing Terra Firma. Earlier in the summer Citigroup put EMI up for sale , a process expected to be completed in October, although it is now unclear if the legal action may disrupt this timeline. Hands had been fighting a rearguard action to attempt to hold on to EMI. In January he lodged an application to challenge a verdict delivered last November after a New York jury cleared Citigroup of tricking the private equity firm into overpaying for EMI. Bidders for EMI are thought to include Len Blavatnik, who is in the final stages of completing a $3.3bn takeover of Warner Music; the billionaire Gores brothers; and German giant Bertelsmann, which is attempting to build its music publishing business BMG Rights Management, a joint venture with private equity company KKR. Sony Music, which is thought to have worked with Bertelsmann on an unsuccessful bid for Warner Music, and Universal Music have also assessed EMI’s recorded music and publishing assets. Artists signed to EMI labels include Coldplay, Katy Perry and Tinie Tempah. Citigroup has previously said that it will consider “all offers” for the business and is not wedded to the idea of selling EMI as a whole, which is chief executive Roger Faxon’s preferred option. Terra Firma, Citigroup and EMI declined to comment. •
Continue reading …