Homophobia and AIDS funding can't coexist -- latimes.com

Homophobia and AIDS funding can't coexist -- latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

Sushi Often Not What You Think (LiveScience.com)

Sushi Often Not What You Think
(LiveScience.com): "LiveScience.com - That tuna in your sushi might be an endangered species, a new study finds."

Women and minorities often left out of green jobs, study says

Women and minorities often left out of green jobs, study says: "

Green jobs don’t have to leave out women and minorities, according to a case study released by the Applied Research Center today.

The report, by senior research associate Yvonne Yen Liu, profiled the work of the community organization Strategic Concepts in Organizing and Policy Education and the Los Angeles chapter of the Apollo Alliance in helping to pass a green retrofit ordinance for municipal buildings.

The Applied Research Center, a racial justice think tank based in New York, said in “Greening Los Angeles” that women and minorities are often left out of the green economy. Of the people employed in green industries and occupations, blacks and Latinos make up less than 30%. Black women fill just 1.5% of energy sector jobs, while Latinas occupy 1% and Asian women take up 0.7%.

For more information about green jobs – where they are, how to prepare for them and how to land them – read this story from Sunday’s Business section.

The federal government gave out around $5.5 million in grants Wednesday to encourage green jobs training.

-- Tiffany Hsu

Photo: Jesus Rosales, a member of La Causa, works to replace a leaking window in a home that his group has renovated using green technology. Credit: Al Seib / Los Angeles Times.

"

More Republicans think Obama stole election than Democrats think Bush stole either 2000 or 2004

More Republicans think Obama stole election than Democrats think Bush stole either 2000 or 2004: "A new survey from PPP (PDF) shows that 26% of Americans, most of whom are Republicans, think that ACORN stole the election for President Obama.

For the sake of comparison, a Gallup poll immediately following Gore's concession in the 2000 election showed that 18% of the county, a significant percentage of whom were African-American, believed that Bush stole the election.

In 2004, the numbers for Bush were even lower. Back then, in the wake of Kerry's concession, a Gallup poll showed only 13% of the country believed that Bush stole the election. (FWIW, I was among the 5% or so that shifted from 2000 to 2004.)

This is simultaneously a demonstration that hard-core conservatives live in an entirely different reality than the rest of the country, and that the hardcore conservative base is as much as twice as large as the hardcore progressive base. As both a media figure and a political organizer that operates primarily in the hardcore progressive world, I'd be lying if I didn't admit the size of the hardcore conservative base made be pretty jealous.

With the exception of 1995, polling has consistently shown that there are more Americans who believe Republicans are too liberal than there are Americans who believe Democrats are too conservative. Further, a larger percentage of Americans are Republicans who would prefer less-electable candidates with whom they largely agree on issues, than are Democrats who hold the same belief (source, PDF). And there are even more conservatives who think the 2008 election was stolen than there are progressives who think the 2000 election was stolen, which is pretty remarkable given the difference in margin between the two elections.

Many dismiss the importance of an active, engaged, ideological base, but such a base seems to have far more benefits than negatives. The base provides the resources to win elections. They provide turnout in low attention and enthusiasm elections. They fuel the primary challenges that keep party members in line, and thus allow you to pass legislation. They make your entire party appear to believe in something, rather than being wishy-washy and attempting to win for its own sake. The continuing base gap between conservatives and progressives is a major factor in why progressive governance remains so much more difficult than conservative governance.

"

Scientists baffled by global warming's time-out

Scientists baffled by global warming's time-out: "Temperatures haven't risen this decade, as climatologists expected. Is it sunspots? Ocean currents? Secret volcano?

"

Why Some People Go Green--and Others Don't (U.S. News & World Report)

Why Some People Go Green--and Others Don't
(U.S. News & World Report): "U.S. News & World Report - Why do some people love the Toyota Prius, but others couldn't care less about driving a hybrid vehicle? Why do some of your friends spend hours trying to reduce their carbon footprint, while others wonder what's the point of even recycling?"

Nuclear power: less effective than energy efficiency and renewable energy?

Nuclear power: less effective than energy efficiency and renewable energy?: "

If the U.S. wants to help stop global warming, nuclear power is not the way to go, according to a new report released today.

The Environment California Research & Policy Center concluded that launching a nuclear power industry nearly from the ground up is too slow and expensive a process. Energy efficiency standards and renewable energy options are better solutions, researchers said.

Currently, no new nuclear reactors are under construction in the country, and no U.S. power company has ordered a nuclear plant since 1978. All orders for nuclear facilities after fall 1973 were eventually canceled, according to the report.

Meanwhile, building a reactor would probably take around a decade – 2016 at the earliest, the study suggested. Without an existing infrastructure, manufacturing reactor parts with the dearth of trained personnel would be difficult.

But even if the nuclear industry managed to build 100 reactors by 2030, the total power produced would reduce total U.S. emissions only 12% over the next 20 years, which Environment California deemed “far too little, too late.”

The $600-billion upfront investment necessary for the 100 reactors would slice out twice as much carbon pollution in that period if invested in clean energy, according to the report. And given the costs of running a power plant, clean energy could deliver five times as much progress per dollar in lowering pollution.

Peter Bradford, a former U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission member, made this comparison in a statement: “Counting on new nuclear reactors as a climate change solution is no more sensible than counting on an un-built dam to create a lake to fight a nearby forest fire.”

-- Tiffany Hsu

"

Fossil-fuel emissions up 2 percent in 2008, tracking worst trends (AFP)

"Not even a poor economy can keep us down!"

Fossil-fuel emissions up 2 percent in 2008, tracking worst trends
(AFP): "

AFP - Carbon emissions from fossil fuels rose two percent last year to an all-time high, leaving Earth on a worst-scenario track for global warming, scientists reported on Tuesday.

"

From Dental Crowns to Implants

From Dental Crowns to Implants: "Personal Health columnist Jane Brody explores the shift from crowns and bridges to dental implants for tooth decay."

Study points to increasing food allergies among children

Study points to increasing food allergies among children: "

Almost 4% of American children have food allergies, according to a sweeping analysis of the problem published today in the journal Pediatrics.

The study is the first to make a broad estimate of the prevalence of food allergies among U.S. children and supports previous, smaller studies suggesting that food allergy rates are rising rapidly for reasons that are unclear.

Researchers from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that self-reported food allergies increased 18% from 1997 to 2007.

The estimates were drawn from surveys of the children's parents and from medical records. Using data from medical records taken in 2005-06, researchers found 9% of all children tested positive for immunoglobulin E antibodies to peanuts. IgE tests are not considered reliable indicators of an allergy, but they do suggest an increased risk or past history of an allergy. The antibody tests were positive for egg allergies in 7% of children, for milk allergies in 12% and for shrimp allergies in 5%.

Finally, the analysis showed that healthcare visits for food allergies in children nearly tripled between the two time periods studied: 1992 through 1997 and 2003 through 2006. In the later period, U.S. children had an average of 317,000 visits to healthcare settings per year for food allergies.

The study also suggests potential racial differences among children with food allergies. While Latino children had the lowest prevalence of food allergies in 2007 compared with other racial groups, they had the greatest increase in reported food allergies over the time period studied.

"We used four different surveys, and to see an increase in food allergies in all of those surveys is very telling," said the lead author of the study, Amy M. Branum of the National Center for Health Statistics. "This is not just limited to one demographic or age group."

-- Shari Roan

Photo credit: Al Schaben / Los Angeles Times

"

The Evolution of the God Gene

The Evolution of the God Gene: "New research is pointing to a new perspective on religion, one that seeks to explain why religious behavior has occurred in societies at every stage of development.


"

Girls and young women have higher rates of both chlamydia, gonorrhea

Girls and young women have higher rates of both chlamydia, gonorrhea: "

Today, we get new data on chlamydia, gonorrhea and syphilis infections in the United States. And it appears that girls and young women age 15 to 19 -- especially African American girls and women -- are at considerable risk; they have the highest number of cases of both chlamydia and gonorrhea.

Increased screening may be responsible for some, but not all, of these numbers, the report says. Among the highlights of the 2008 data from the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention:

-- Chlamydia: 1.2 million total cases reported; 342,875 in the aforementioned age group. Women are more likely to be severely affected in the long term, experts say, but men and women likely have similar disease rates. Men just don't get tested as much.

-- Gonorrhea: 336,742 total cases reported, again with girls and young women having the highest rates. Experts believe the true number is almost twice this amount.

-- Syphilis: 13,500 total cases reported, most among men who have sex with men.

What's needed, the report says, is better screening and treatment -- and behavioral interventions (safe sex, among other things). And, it says, we must do something about the racial disparities.

Here's the summary of the new data, with highlights. And here's the full report: Sexually Transmitted Disease Surveillance, 2008.

-- Tami Dennis

"

One nation, insured -- latimes.com

One nation, insured -- latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

The flaws of lethal injection -- latimes.com

The flaws of lethal injection -- latimes.com

Posted using ShareThis

Pregnancy: Health and Human Rights

Pregnancy: Health and Human Rights: "I remember the day in 1997 when I listened to my doctor tell me that I had a very large ovarian cyst, also, that I was likely to have a miscarriage. She said it was good that my body seemed to be taking care of things on its own, because the cyst could rupture and hemorrhage and they couldn't operate if I was pregnant because it was a Catholic hospital.

My doctor wasn't mean about it, she just couldn't give me this operation that she'd told me about a minute previous I needed to avert a threat to my life.

I was lucky that I miscarried. As the hormone-induced changes in the cyst caused pain that made it hard to stand upright in a matter of days, it's a good that I didn't have to go through the trouble of finding another hospital covered under my insurance. I went quickly from the terror of waiting to know if I could get that operation to the grim realities of going through it and recovering.

It turned out all right, but I've always remembered since then that I once sat helpless in a doctor's office watching her eyes slide away from mine to the floor as she refused to say anything when I pressed her to tell me what would happen if there wasn't a natural miscarriage. She just skipped ahead to how someone with my blood test results wasn't going to be pregnant much longer.

Opponents of abortion like to center their arguments around the fetus and talk about whether it's a person. Which basically means to me that they don't think women are people with the basic right to determine the conditions of their lives and what will happen to their bodies, who can be forced to suffer or die because it will make someone else feel better.

Because even without the problems I had, this is what pregnancy can do to a woman's body.
Just hitting the highlights, there's the risk of: scarring, trauma to the pelvic floor, permanent damage to pelvic floor muscles, drain on bone density (which can be significantly worsened by nursing), permanent weight gain, broken bones and dislocated ribs, anemia, urinary incontinence, depression (which can't be treated with medication), headaches, loss of future fertility, forced c-sections, susceptibility to infection, incomplete miscarriage, getting kicked constantly in the gut, circulatory disorders (temporary or permanent), induced diabetes, hemorrhage, curtailment of activities or mandatory bed rest, frequent vomiting, debilitating vomiting, exhaustion, pain.

The serious downside to most of those should be obvious, but don't laugh about the inclusion of permanent weight gain in the list of physical risks, either. Only the dishonest and the clueless won't admit that women's economic success, and potential romantic success with new partners, is far more dependent on conforming to a beauty norm that favors slimness than men's is. The existence of men who find women attractive after childbirth or stay with their partners for life, or women who can bounce back to their original physiques, doesn't negate the point. Having a child in bad circumstances, or with a partner whose affection fades later, is a subtle negative pressure in ways large and small working against successful new beginnings.

And, oh yes, the pain. For which no medication can be taken up until it practically doesn't matter anymore. Speaking of which, if you get sick or have a broken bone during pregnancy, you mostly can't take anything for it if you want to continue a healthy pregnancy.

What on earth gives anyone the right to put another human being through all of that? Nothing.

Most women will go ahead and have a child anyway at some time in their lives, which is fine if that's what they want. There are compensations, though that really isn't the point.

The point is that it's a sacrifice, and a serious one that poses an unknowable risk to every pregnant woman of permanent physical damage or degradation of bodily function. Or death.

Pregnancy and childbirth were once routine causes of death for women in the US, as pregnancy and birth still are for women around the world with poor access to medical care, and as they still occasionally can be among women with excellent medical care. Even beyond directly pregnancy or birth-related maternal mortality, the leading cause of death among pregnant women in the US is murder, as pregnancy can be a proximal excuse for abusers to totally lose their sh*t.

Then there are other potential problems beyond these immediate health threats.

Let's start with the economic. Within careers, pregnancy and motherhood both make women permanent targets for workplace discrimination and assumptions of incompetence. So if a woman wants to support that child, she is at a greater economic disadvantage from the moment she starts to show until retirement, greater, that is, than the economic disadvantage she likely already faced just being a woman. Pregnancy and childbirth are also significant risk factors for homelessness, particularly among teens, in which case they are likely to face higher risks of violent attack.

Speaking of abuse, again, pregnancy itself can be a goal of partner abuse. An abuser may withold or sabotage birth control methods or bully his partner into unprotected sex with the aim of making her more compliant and dependent on him. If she tries to leave later, the abuser can use the children as a weapon against her for years and years and years. In situations like these, restrictions on abortion access directly enable domestic abusers.

Were you aware that domestic abuse is extremely costly, both to women and society, in terms of lost lifetime earnings and productivity? The US DoJ estimated in 1996 that it costs $67 billion every year. Do you think the price tag might have gone up in the last decade? Add that to the cognitive impairment associated with domestic abuse (ooh, that's a real winner in the job market), the economic disadvantage that women usually start with, then the economic disadvantages that come with motherhood, and you may begin to get an idea of the gross injustice that it is to enact policies that can reinforce patterns of abuse against women who can't afford to walk away.

One in three women will be abused in her lifetime, as I was, which is about a sixth of the US population. I daresay there's some overlap there with the one in three of us who will decide that she needs to have an abortion in her lifetime.

There's nothing equivalently risky that men can legally be forced to do, or are even likely to be asked to do, aside from being on the front lines of a war zone.

If a woman's right to decide that she just can't handle this ridiculous level of risk at a given time, or that her body simply can't take anymore, or that she can't outlast the depression it may trigger, is regarded as irrelevant, then no one really has any inalienable rights (via) at all.

If you're a Democrat who doesn't get that all restrictions on abortion are human rights violations, we aren't on the same team.

"