Baking Battle: Student Group Under Fire For Its Anti-Affirmative Action Bake Sale
September 27, 2011 No Comment
A student group at UC Berkeley cooks up controversy with its anti-affirmative action bake sale. On Tuesday, a group of student Republicans will host a bake sale that sells pastries priced by the buyer’s gender or race. On the Facebook page that advertised the “Increase Diversity Bake Sale,” the group listed the prices as follows:
Continue reading …
Sir David Nicholson says health minister is wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control The government’s health reforms ran into further trouble on Tuesday when the chief executive of the NHS publicly challenged a key proposal. As peers prepare to table a series of amendments to the health and social care bill, Sir David Nicholson said the government was wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, wants to repeal a provision in the 2006 National Health Service Act which allows for the “de-authorisation” of failing foundation trusts, triggering their return to NHS control. The change is designed to strengthen foundation trusts – a central element of the government’s plans to decentralise power in the NHS – which will eventually take over the running of all hospitals in England. In evidence to the public inquiry into failings at the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, Nicholson called on the government to retain the renationalisation of a failing trust in its “armoury”. Nicholson is understood to have voiced, in private, reservations about the Lansley plan, which was introduced as an amendments to the bill after the government’s “listening exercise” on the NHS reforms. Nicholson told the inquiry: “I do think that the opportunity in a sense to renationalise a foundation trust should be part of the armoury of any government in these circumstances. It’s not one shared, I have to say, by the government. But it’s something that I believe to be the case.” Asked by Tom Kark QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether his proposal went against the government’s central policy, Nicholson hesitated, then said: “They want all organisations to be foundation trusts, but I believe that from time to time it may be necessary for the state to take the direct management of an organisation.” Labour will lambast the health reforms at the party’s conference in Liverpool on Wednesday. Liz Kendall, the shadow health minister, said: “For David Nicholson to so directly and publicly contradict Andrew Lansley is a damning indictment of the Tories’ NHS proposals. Labour tabled amendments to the health bill to ensure foundation trusts can revert to NHS trust status in the event they fail, in order to protect patient care. Lansley must now listen and stop his reckless and risky NHS plans.” In a note on the bill this month, the government said of Lansley’s plan: “As a result of the amendment, the regime would be more independent and transparent, reducing unnecessary costs and delays, with additional safeguards for patients and taxpayers.” Nicholson told the inquiry: “The arrangements that we’re putting into place when the strategic health authorities are abolished at the end of March 2013 are that we will have to set up something that will be called the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, which all those organisations that are not foundation trusts by that date will be accountable to that body. And that body then will be responsible for taking those organisations through to foundation trust status.” The Mid Staffordshire inquiry, which is being chaired by Robert Francis QC, is to return to the matter on Wednesday. Francis is chairing his second inquiry to discover why as many as 1,200 patients died of preventable causes at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2008. The intervention by Nicholson comes at a sensitive time for Lansley. Peers are due to debate the bill on 11 October. Ministers are saying they will have to accept further amendments to the bill in the House of Lords because a hardcore group of rebel peers, led by the veteran Liberal Democrat Lady Willliams, are determined to challenge the government. Labour will condemn the bill at its conference in Liverpool. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, has warned that David Cameron faces a “lethal” threat as increasing numbers of voters decide he is threatening the security of the NHS. Health policy Health NHS Public services policy Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Sir David Nicholson says health minister is wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control The government’s health reforms ran into further trouble on Tuesday when the chief executive of the NHS publicly challenged a key proposal. As peers prepare to table a series of amendments to the health and social care bill, Sir David Nicholson said the government was wrong to block failing foundation hospitals from returning to direct NHS control. Andrew Lansley, the health secretary, wants to repeal a provision in the 2006 National Health Service Act which allows for the “de-authorisation” of failing foundation trusts, triggering their return to NHS control. The change is designed to strengthen foundation trusts – a central element of the government’s plans to decentralise power in the NHS – which will eventually take over the running of all hospitals in England. In evidence to the public inquiry into failings at the Mid-Staffordshire NHS Trust, Nicholson called on the government to retain the renationalisation of a failing trust in its “armoury”. Nicholson is understood to have voiced, in private, reservations about the Lansley plan, which was introduced as an amendments to the bill after the government’s “listening exercise” on the NHS reforms. Nicholson told the inquiry: “I do think that the opportunity in a sense to renationalise a foundation trust should be part of the armoury of any government in these circumstances. It’s not one shared, I have to say, by the government. But it’s something that I believe to be the case.” Asked by Tom Kark QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether his proposal went against the government’s central policy, Nicholson hesitated, then said: “They want all organisations to be foundation trusts, but I believe that from time to time it may be necessary for the state to take the direct management of an organisation.” Labour will lambast the health reforms at the party’s conference in Liverpool on Wednesday. Liz Kendall, the shadow health minister, said: “For David Nicholson to so directly and publicly contradict Andrew Lansley is a damning indictment of the Tories’ NHS proposals. Labour tabled amendments to the health bill to ensure foundation trusts can revert to NHS trust status in the event they fail, in order to protect patient care. Lansley must now listen and stop his reckless and risky NHS plans.” In a note on the bill this month, the government said of Lansley’s plan: “As a result of the amendment, the regime would be more independent and transparent, reducing unnecessary costs and delays, with additional safeguards for patients and taxpayers.” Nicholson told the inquiry: “The arrangements that we’re putting into place when the strategic health authorities are abolished at the end of March 2013 are that we will have to set up something that will be called the National Health Service Trust Development Authority, which all those organisations that are not foundation trusts by that date will be accountable to that body. And that body then will be responsible for taking those organisations through to foundation trust status.” The Mid Staffordshire inquiry, which is being chaired by Robert Francis QC, is to return to the matter on Wednesday. Francis is chairing his second inquiry to discover why as many as 1,200 patients died of preventable causes at Stafford hospital between 2005 and 2008. The intervention by Nicholson comes at a sensitive time for Lansley. Peers are due to debate the bill on 11 October. Ministers are saying they will have to accept further amendments to the bill in the House of Lords because a hardcore group of rebel peers, led by the veteran Liberal Democrat Lady Willliams, are determined to challenge the government. Labour will condemn the bill at its conference in Liverpool. John Healey, the shadow health secretary, has warned that David Cameron faces a “lethal” threat as increasing numbers of voters decide he is threatening the security of the NHS. Health policy Health NHS Public services policy Nicholas Watt guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Maggots helped to heal the wounds of people with diabetes after multiple traditional treatments had failed, a small study shows.
Continue reading …Workers have said all along that U.S. trade policies were killing American jobs, and now the research is finally catching up to them. Maybe we’ll be smart enough to drop the three Bush trade agreements Obama is currently trying to push: For years, economists have told Americans worried that cheap Chinese imports will kill jobs that the benefits of trade with China far outweigh its costs. But new research suggests the damage to the U.S. has been deeper than these economists have supposed . The study, conducted by a team of three economists, doesn’t challenge the traditional view that trade is ultimately good for the economy. Workers who lose jobs do eventually find new work or retire, while the benefits from trade, such as lower prices, remain. The problem is the speed at which China has surged as an exporter—overwhelming the normal process of adaptation. The study rated every U.S. county for their manufacturers’ exposure to competition from China, and found that regions most exposed to China tended not only to lose more manufacturing jobs, but also to see overall employment decline. Areas with higher exposure also had larger increases in workers receiving unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability payments. The authors calculate that the cost to the economy from the increased government payments amounts to one- to two-thirds of the gains from trade with China. In other words, a big portion of the ways trade with China has helped the U.S.—such as by providing inexpensive Chinese goods to consumers—has been wiped out. And that estimate doesn’t include any economic losses experienced by people who lost their jobs. The theory of comparative advantage, framed two centuries ago by British economist David Ricardo, says nations prosper by focusing on what they do best and trading with other countries that have different strengths. But amid the surge in inexpensive imports over the past decade, some prominent economists have challenged that view. In a 2004 article, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson argued that while trade may benefit some Americans, it does so by “decimating” the wages of blue-collar factory workers. Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman Alan Blinder—once a champion of free trade—in recent years has argued that U.S. firms’ increased outsourcing to low-wage countries puts millions of American jobs at risk. Michael Spence, a Nobel Laureate economist at New York University, said the new finding reflects how prevailing theories of trade aren’t up to the task of dealing with the breakneck pace of China and other developing economies. Since the world has never seen such large countries grow so quickly, history isn’t much of a guide. “It’s not like we can look to the past and ask ourselves what happened last time this happened, because there wasn’t a last time,” he said. Because the surge in goods from China has swamped import growth from other low-wage countries, the researchers focused on Chinese imports. They studied 722 clusters of interrelated counties covering the entire U.S. Some communities were more exposed to China, because they produced goods such as small appliances where Chinese imports have surged. Other regions were concentrated in industries like heavy machinery where Chinese competition has been slower to build. A pattern emerged, with areas where factories were most exposed to Chinese import growth faring worse than the less exposed. Between 2000 and 2007, a community at the 75th percentile—one with a greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities—saw a manufacturing employment decline of roughly one-third more than communities at the 25th percentile .
Continue reading …Workers have said all along that U.S. trade policies were killing American jobs, and now the research is finally catching up to them. Maybe we’ll be smart enough to drop the three Bush trade agreements Obama is currently trying to push: For years, economists have told Americans worried that cheap Chinese imports will kill jobs that the benefits of trade with China far outweigh its costs. But new research suggests the damage to the U.S. has been deeper than these economists have supposed . The study, conducted by a team of three economists, doesn’t challenge the traditional view that trade is ultimately good for the economy. Workers who lose jobs do eventually find new work or retire, while the benefits from trade, such as lower prices, remain. The problem is the speed at which China has surged as an exporter—overwhelming the normal process of adaptation. The study rated every U.S. county for their manufacturers’ exposure to competition from China, and found that regions most exposed to China tended not only to lose more manufacturing jobs, but also to see overall employment decline. Areas with higher exposure also had larger increases in workers receiving unemployment insurance, food stamps and disability payments. The authors calculate that the cost to the economy from the increased government payments amounts to one- to two-thirds of the gains from trade with China. In other words, a big portion of the ways trade with China has helped the U.S.—such as by providing inexpensive Chinese goods to consumers—has been wiped out. And that estimate doesn’t include any economic losses experienced by people who lost their jobs. The theory of comparative advantage, framed two centuries ago by British economist David Ricardo, says nations prosper by focusing on what they do best and trading with other countries that have different strengths. But amid the surge in inexpensive imports over the past decade, some prominent economists have challenged that view. In a 2004 article, the late Nobel Laureate Paul Samuelson argued that while trade may benefit some Americans, it does so by “decimating” the wages of blue-collar factory workers. Princeton University economist and former Federal Reserve Board vice chairman Alan Blinder—once a champion of free trade—in recent years has argued that U.S. firms’ increased outsourcing to low-wage countries puts millions of American jobs at risk. Michael Spence, a Nobel Laureate economist at New York University, said the new finding reflects how prevailing theories of trade aren’t up to the task of dealing with the breakneck pace of China and other developing economies. Since the world has never seen such large countries grow so quickly, history isn’t much of a guide. “It’s not like we can look to the past and ask ourselves what happened last time this happened, because there wasn’t a last time,” he said. Because the surge in goods from China has swamped import growth from other low-wage countries, the researchers focused on Chinese imports. They studied 722 clusters of interrelated counties covering the entire U.S. Some communities were more exposed to China, because they produced goods such as small appliances where Chinese imports have surged. Other regions were concentrated in industries like heavy machinery where Chinese competition has been slower to build. A pattern emerged, with areas where factories were most exposed to Chinese import growth faring worse than the less exposed. Between 2000 and 2007, a community at the 75th percentile—one with a greater exposure to Chinese import growth than 75% of all communities—saw a manufacturing employment decline of roughly one-third more than communities at the 25th percentile .
Continue reading …George Ashman, 5-Year-Old Boy, Gets Devil Horn Implants To Remove Birthmark
September 27, 2011 No Comment
When George Ashman was born in 2006 with a large unsightly red scar on his forehead, his mother feared he’d become a target for bullies. “When he was born, immediately my mind raced forward 10 years. George would be the picked-on kid with no friends, no girlfriend,” mom Karen Ashman of Somerset, United Kingdom, told the Daily Mail. The haemangioma birthmark was made up of bright, soft lumps of abnormal blood vessels, making it tricky to remove. After the family sought help from the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, doctors implanted devil-like horns to stretch out the skin on his forehead so the blemish could then be removed, The Daily Mirror reports. IB Times explains that “small inflatable sacks were inserted under his hairline at either side of his forehead,” which filled up with natural bodily fluid. Over four months, the pair of horns stretched the skin, allowing for his birthmark to be removed. Fortunately, the surgery was a success and George only has a minor scar left on his forehead.
Continue reading …George Ashman, 5-Year-Old Boy, Gets Devil Horn Implants To Remove Birthmark
September 27, 2011 No CommentWhen George Ashman was born in 2006 with a large unsightly red scar on his forehead, his mother feared he’d become a target for bullies. “When he was born, immediately my mind raced forward 10 years. George would be the picked-on kid with no friends, no girlfriend,” mom Karen Ashman of Somerset, United Kingdom, told the Daily Mail. The haemangioma birthmark was made up of bright, soft lumps of abnormal blood vessels, making it tricky to remove. After the family sought help from the Great Ormond Street Hospital in London, doctors implanted devil-like horns to stretch out the skin on his forehead so the blemish could then be removed, The Daily Mirror reports. IB Times explains that “small inflatable sacks were inserted under his hairline at either side of his forehead,” which filled up with natural bodily fluid. Over four months, the pair of horns stretched the skin, allowing for his birthmark to be removed. Fortunately, the surgery was a success and George only has a minor scar left on his forehead.
Continue reading …Scarborough: People Shocked By Fox’s Political Agenda Ignore Democrats Used Media This Way for 30 Years
September 27, 2011 No Comment
As NewsBusters reported Monday, Newsweek featured an in-depth look at Fox News and chairman Roger Ailes in its most recent installment. When this subject came up on MSNBC's “Morning Joe” Tuesday, after the guests predictably carped and whined about FNC's conservative leanings, host Joe Scarborough observed, “People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOHN HEILEMANN, NEW YORK MAGAZINE: Let us never forget that Roger Ailes, you know, was before he was a great television producer was a great political strategist, and was someone who was a hard bone deep partisan. MIKA BRZEZINSKI, CO-HOST: Maybe just a little too good at both. TINA BROWN, NEWSWEEK/DAILY BEAST: Wow, exactly right. HEILEMANN: I mean, won the election for George Herbert Walker Bush in 1988. He's, you know, he’s played both sides of that street for a long time. BROWN: And as was just said, a little too good at both. JOE SCARBOROUGH: Just like, we got to say, just like a hell of a lot of people in the mainstream media over the past 30 years have played both sides of the street, but they’re always on the Democratic side. That's what makes it so unique. People are shocked and stunned at the blurred lines when Roger Ailes and Fox does it, not so shocked and stunned when Democratic establishment figures have been doing it over the past three decades. MARK HALPERIN, TIME MAGAZINE: What sets Roger apart from most of the Democrats who play both sides of this is Roger has been awesome at both jobs. BROWN: That’s exactly right. Awesome at both. That's why he’s such a fiend. SCARBOROUGH: A fiend? BROWN: Right. SCARBOROUGH: Well. BROWN: A fiend to be so good at it. HALPERIN: Fiend means something totally different in England.
Continue reading …