Tag Archives: disneyland

Facebook’s Not Designed to Create a “Global Community”

Mother Jones

In the early 1960’s, Canadian philosopher Marshall McLuhan coined the term “global village.” He predicted that electronic technologies would come to connect citizens around the world, forming one huge community. Mark Zuckerberg, whose company Facebook has 1.8 billion users worldwide, continues to echo the idea in his public talks, including in February when he apologized about the spread of fake news on his platform and restated his mission to “build a global community that works for all of us.” But was McLuhan right? Have the internet’s inventions brought us closer together?

Ramesh Srinivasan, a professor at UCLA, raises this question in his debut book Whose Global Village? Rethinking How Technology Impacts Our World. As a researcher focused on the relationship between technology, politics, and society, Srinivasan proposes a deconstruction of Western tech company narratives. He points out that today’s most popular technological tools were developed by just a few men in Silicon Valley. And while their social media platforms may be wildly popular, these founders tend to get too much credit for influencing events around the globe. For instance, Srinivasan points out that there is a belief that the Egyptian revolution during the Arab Spring in 2011 was only possible thanks to Twitter and Facebook—actually, less than 10 percent of Egyptians had access to those platforms in their homes at the time.

Srinivasan also shares his own experiences about community empowerment through technology with Native Americans in California and New Mexico, and with locals in Egypt and in rural India. In addition to greater transparency in contracts established on the Internet, the author urges for the creation of more tech tools that respect cultural values ​​and the voices of local communities.

Mother Jones: Why did you write this book?

Ramesh Srinivasan: The book really comes out of my own personal experience. I am a former engineer and I was really excited about the possibility of building better technology to serve humanity. A lot of us as engineers have this belief that if you build a tool you somehow can empower humans economically or socially. The idea of building a better technology often means more efficiency. When I was in graduate school at MIT I was trying to think about how to develop software and systems for farmers and villagers in India. In the process of doing that, I realized that my reference point was internal to the laboratory, rather than in the communities that I was wanting to serve. So in a sense I was not necessarily thinking about the values, belief systems, and the realities that are being experiencing by the communities that I was supposed to be working with. I realized that I could no longer assume what a good technology looks like from inside the laboratory; instead, I had to be in the world with people. Not just designing for them but with them.

MJ: What is the real meaning of technology to you?

RS: Technology is nothing but an expression of human values. It’s not neutral, it’s not about efficiency, it’s about people’s values and their knowledge. If you share information widely, but you present that information in ways that fits your own view, you’re actually still misrepresenting. So instead what you should do is figure out ways to build systems that allow people to experience and classify their information in ways that are meaningful for them.

MJ: What is the “global village,” and why is it a myth?

RS: It was a term that was stated by Marshall McLuhan; his prediction was some kind of electronic communication technology would emerge to instantaneously connect the world so much so that the whole globe would be like a village. The question isn’t about global village but whose global village. The point I’m trying to make is if these networks of communication technologies are owned, monetized, surveilled, and classified by those with power—very few people, mainly white men in Silicon Valley—then it is a global village build upon the ideas, visions, words, and protocols of the few. So it’s not global—it’s like Epcot center. It’s like Disneyland: a small worldview of the larger world.

MJ: As you said, Twitter and Facebook were accessed in fewer than 10 percent of Egyptian homes in 2011. Why do people believe the revolution was led by this kind of technology?

RS: Some of the activists of course were using social media. But overall in the country, including in Cairo, a very small percentage were using it. They were using these tools to influence journalism, to influence the international coverage. The Egyptians used every form of organizing they could think of and they built coalitions. A lot of the people that were involved in this had been organizing for 30 or 40 years.

MJ: Why do you say that inequality today is a major part of the story of the internet?

RS: In its early days the Internet seem to be a counter cultural space and an anti corporate space, now is the place for corporate economic production. What the internet is now isn’t what it used to be and it doesn’t have to be what it turns into. Instagram was sold to Facebook for $1 billion with 13 employees in the Bay Area. In the same year, Kodak, which had employed more than 40,000 people, was bankrupt. What is happening in a digital economy where 40,000 people lose their jobs and 13 people become super millionaires? Those systems are created in such way that support the capturing of data, keeping of data, buying and selling the data to support what we call corporate surveillance. These are things that are happening right now and they’re really bad.

MJ: What are the main conceptual changes that the World Wide Web has faced since the 1990’s? It was a more decentralized structure before, right?

RS: Absolutely, it was horizontal, decentralized. It was like being in Wild West, the frontier. There is a reason why Electronic Frontier Foundation is called that way. It was supposed to be this open place where all sorts of crazy stuff could happen, like unpredictable, uncontrolled space, that really supported autonomy and privacy, but still worked because people had an idea of social contract. You could kind of be free and expressive but you already knew when you joined the internet, you knew that you should not be a troll. So what happened? Part of it is the internet scaled to such a degree so the kind of idea of a social contract or a community became increasingly difficult to maintain. Part of it is that platforms took over the open internet. You began to experience the internet through platforms that were themselves controlled by specific companies, technical instruments of those companies, like search and retrieval and ordering and classification.

MJ: Isn’t it also a problem of scale?

RS: Scale doesn’t need to mean the absence of decentralization. If you create networks that allow people in their own local systems to have power and agency and sovereignty in their own systems. The idea that people could just know what’s happening with their data. You could work with the platform, in communication with it, more than “I’m just like experiencing as a blind person in a black box”.

MJ: Do you think we should have more legislation about privacy?

RS: Not just about privacy, but also about community sovereignty. Communities that are using the internet should be aware of what the terms of their contract are with these platforms and they don’t even know. Google and Facebook extend internet access across the world, but the access is generally speaking to an internet that is focused on the advertisers to those sites. So I’m really interested not just in privacy for the individual but respect for the local communities. And I think we have a problem with both and whenever industries kind of become almost monopolistic they have to be challenged to be more responsible. We can challenge them in the press, in the courts and in regulation.

MJ: I’m afraid that government ruling the internet might not be a good thing either.

RS: I think the governments need to encourage these companies and convince them that they can be extremely profitable without necessarily spiraling out of control. Without becoming monopolist. But we are getting close to the point where as every platform of tech that has any level of scale gets bought by either Google or Facebook or sometimes Microsoft. We are getting to the point where we see some oligopoly in terms of behavior online, and that it’s really problematic because the oligopolies are completely non transparent, they are terrible in terms of labor and economic equality and they support systems of surveillance. It can create a world where we are all placed in bubbles, where the systems themselves can be manipulated by people who don’t have our best interests in mind. The fake news thing came out that system. Fake news is a product of the internet that is not transparent. Fake news can spread online because as users we have no idea where any of the content we see comes from.

MJ: What do you see happening with the big tech companies right now?

RS: We are at a moment that some of the Silicon Valley companies are feeling the pressure. These days the founder of Twitter apologized that his company promoted some of the things that elected Trump. You don’t see that much of these apologizing from Google. From Zuckerberg you are hearing a little bit more of it, but he is a little more “Oh, well, this is what happens because the internet scaled up and everybody has fake news; oh, we are gonna build a better technology”. This is what engineers in Silicon Valley typically do. “Ok, well, of course there are some problems of our technology because it is so excellent and is so global so we are just gonna build a better one.” What do you mean by better? They are not understating that they are so politically and socially and culturally central in the world. They would probably never have thought that they would become like this. But now that they are, what are they gonna do about it? I have a lots of friends who work in these companies: it’s about taking responsibility.

Continue reading here: 

Facebook’s Not Designed to Create a “Global Community”

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Facebook’s Not Designed to Create a “Global Community”

Trump Hates Renewable Energy—Unless It’s Powering One of His Hot New Hotels

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

At a rally in Pennsylvania in August, Donald Trump had some complaints about wind power. “The wind kills all your birds,” he told supporters. “All your birds: killed.”

It was typical Trump: The president-elect hates wind turbines. He derides them as colossal eyesores. “It looks like a junkyard,” he said in October, referring to wind farms outside Palm Springs, California—”a poor man’s version of Disneyland.” And, he says, they’re unreliable: “Half of them are broken. They’re rusting and rotting.” He spent years battling to prevent a wind farm from being built off Scotland’s coast; his company called the project a “dangerous experiment with wind energy” that would spoil the view from his golf course. (Trump lost—though he’s far from letting the issue go.)

But in at least one major business venture, Trump’s organization embraced wind power big league.

In August 2010, one of the real estate mogul’s most exclusive new hotels—the glassy Trump SoHo in downtown Manhattan—boasted that it would be investing in 100 percent clean power. Specifically, it would be purchasing electricity from wind.

According to one of the deal’s main architects, the move to purchase wind energy was spearheaded by Donald Trump’s daughter, Ivanka, and potentially saved the hotel hundreds of thousands of dollars in energy costs.

“Ivanka was the one that wanted the 100 percent green requirement,” said Bill Cannon, who helped broker the deal when he worked as a senior vice president for Choice Energy Services, a Houston-based energy advisory and brokerage firm. (Ivanka Trump and the Trump Organization did not respond to a request to be interviewed or to written questions.)

Trump SoHo hotel condominium in New York City. Alec Perkins/Wikimedia Commons

Purchasing green energy can actually be pretty complicated. Much of the electricity produced in New York State comes from fossil fuels, so unless a hotel straps turbines or solar panels to its roof, there’s no way to pick and choose the “green” electrons that power a building. So the key to the Trump SoHo deal was the purchase of “renewable energy certificates”—RECs—a tradable financial instrument designed to represent the environmental benefit of energy produced by clean sources, such solar or wind. In other words, the hotel buys energy in one market, but the actual renewable energy is produced elsewhere.

RECs can be controversial (more on this below). In theory, they allow consumers to support the production of renewables even when the actual power they use comes partly from fossil fuels. By purchasing the RECs, Trump could claim to offset the carbon pollution released by the plants powering his new hotel.

Under the deal, the hotel agreed to purchase 5.5 million kilowatt hours of wind energy annually from Green Mountain Energy, a renewable energy retailer owned by the electricity giant NRG. A press release issued at the time by Green Mountain claimed that the arrangement would offset 4.6 million pounds of carbon dioxide emissions each year. According to Green Mountain, this would be the equivalent of 1.3 million houses turning off all their lights for a day. Citing client confidentiality, Green Mountain declined to confirm any details regarding its relationship with the hotel beyond the publicly released information about the 2010 deal.

The deal apparently made financial sense, too, allowing the hotel to lock in low retail electricity rates and avoid market fluctuations. Cannon estimates the upscale building, managed by Trump’s hotel chain, would have enjoyed annual savings in the ballpark of $120,000, compared to regular commercial usage via ConEd, the New York City utility. Cannon says the deal was renewed at least once before he left Choice Energy Services. (Choice did not respond to emails. Cannon now works for a boutique energy brokerage in New York City.)

“Everybody won,” Cannon said, adding that the top brass at the Trump Organization was involved in every step of the decision to invest in renewables. “I was constantly being told, ‘This is a requirement, this is a requirement, this is a requirement,'” he said of Trump’s business people.

Trump SoHo spokeswoman Nicole Murano told Mother Jones that the hotel has since switched energy vendors. She said the hotel still uses renewable energy, but she didn’t provide any further information.

Donald J. Trump and Ivanka Trump at a 2007 news conference announcing the sale of condominium units in the Trump Soho tower Richard B. Levine/Levine Roberts/NC via ZUMA

The effectiveness of RECs is often disputed by critics such as Daniel Press, a professor of environmental studies at the University of California-Santa Cruz. Press argues that RECs do little to reduce emissions in the real world because they have become too cheap to shift energy markets or incentivize businesses to build new turbines or solar panels. Often, RECs can be purchased for far less than what it actually cost to produce the renewable power that they supposedly represent.

“You’re still buying electrons that are generated from a coal plant or from a natural gas plant,” Press told me. “So you didn’t cause the wind turbines to be built, because no one can build a wind farm for 10 cents on the dollar.”

Even so, Auden Shendler, a sustainability expert and a vice president at Aspen Skiing Company, which prides itself on its climate activism, commends Trump SoHo’s 2010 efforts. Shendler, who is generally not a fan of RECs, sees the deal as a step in the right direction. “While experts dispute the value of RECs, clearly the Trump Organization was trying to do the right thing given the knowledge they had at the time,” said Shendler. “This was the right, well-intentioned thing to do, and you can’t blame them for not being a weirdo expert on these things.”

While “it probably doesn’t move the industry much, RECs are a piece of a movement towards more clean power,” he added. “It does help a little bit. This is a kind of crack of light.”

No matter the environmental impact, top Trump executives were thrilled: “We regard this as a wise business decision on all levels,” said the then-general manager of the hotel, David Chase, in the press release announcing the deal. He added that the move “respects the values of our guests who are as concerned as we are about protecting and caring for the environment.”

The 2010 deal stands in stark contrast to much of Trump’s energy rhetoric. Anti-wind Twitter rants are one weapon in Trump’s anti-climate arsenal.

His cabinet picks are another weapon. They are uniformly pro-fossil fuel and anti-regulation—and some are unabashed climate change deniers. Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, picked by Trump to run the Energy Department, claims climate scientists have “manipulated data.” Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt has repeatedly sued the EPA—the agency he’s been selected to lead—to block environmental regulations.

And just days before signing on to lead Trump’s Energy department transition, former Koch Industries lobbyist Tom Pyle penned a memo predicting that the new administration would take a “closer look at the environmental impacts” of the wind industry. “Trump has been concerned about the harms to wildlife from wind turbines such as bird and bat deaths,” wrote Pyle. “Unlike before, wind energy will rightfully face increasing scrutiny from the federal government.”

But just six years ago, Trump was singing a very different tune, as his hotel executives touted his renewable energy purchase as a business coup. As Cannon puts it, the SoHo wind deal gave the company another commodity that is precious in the Trump universe: “bragging rights.”

Continue reading here – 

Trump Hates Renewable Energy—Unless It’s Powering One of His Hot New Hotels

Posted in Bragg, FF, GE, green energy, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, solar, solar panels, Uncategorized, Venta, wind energy, wind power | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump Hates Renewable Energy—Unless It’s Powering One of His Hot New Hotels

California Bill Seeks to Get All Children Vaccinated

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On the heels of an ongoing measles outbreak that has ignited a national debate over childhood vaccinations, California lawmakers introduced a bill on Wednesday seeking to put an end to the use of personal belief exemptions—which allow parents to opt out of vaccinating their children—in the state.

The proposed legislation would essentially require all school children to get vaccinated, unless immunization puts the child’s health at risk.

“We shouldn’t wait for more children to sicken or die before we act,” Rep. Richard Pan (D-Santa Monica) said at a press conference on Wednesday. “Parents are letting us know our current laws are insufficient to protect their kids.”

The current outbreak started in Disneyland and has since spread to 14 states, with at least 102 cases reported, according to the latest report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. California is one of 20 states that allow for such waivers, which public health officials have cited as a primary cause for the recent reemergence of the highly contagious disease. Only 92.3 percent of children in California are vaccinated, and many of the state’s more affluent neighborhoods report even lower rates.

While Gov. Jerry Brown previously signed bills permitting more parental choice on the matter, a spokesperson for the governor indicated he would be open to possible changes.

“The governor believes that vaccinations are profoundly important and a major public health benefit and any bill that reaches his desk will be closely considered,” Evan Westrup said.

Also on Wednesday, Senators Barbara Boxer and Dianne Feinstein released a joint statement calling upon California officials to consider tightening the state’s vaccination policies and ending the both personal belief and religious exemptions.

See the article here: 

California Bill Seeks to Get All Children Vaccinated

Posted in Anchor, Everyone, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on California Bill Seeks to Get All Children Vaccinated

To the Parent of the Unvaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Measles

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Editor’s note: The author is a pediatrician in Phoenix. A version of this letter first appeared in the Jacks’ CareBridge Journal for their sick daughter, Maggie.

To the parent of the unvaccinated child who exposed my family to measles:

I have a number of strong feelings surging through my body right now. Towards my family, I am feeling extra protective like a papa bear. Towards you, unvaccinating parent, I feel anger and frustration at your choices.

More stories on vaccines and outbreaks:


Vaccines Work. These 8 Charts Prove It.


Map: The High Cost of Vaccine Hysteria


How Many People Arenâ&#128;&#153;t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?


Measles Cases in the US are at a 20-Year High. Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers.


This PBS Special Makes The Most Powerful Argument For Vaccines Yet


Mickey Mouse Still Stricken With Measles, Thanks to the Anti-Vaxxers


If You Distrust Vaccines, You’re More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings

By now we’ve all heard of the measles outbreak that originated in Disneyland. Or more accurately, originated from an unvaccinated person that infected other similarly minded vacationers. I won’t get into a debate about the whole anti-vaccine movement, the thimerisol controversy (no longer even used in childhood vaccines), or the myth that MMR causes autism (there are changes in autistic brain chemistry prior to birth).

Let’s talk measles for just a minute. It once was widespread in the US. It is now considered ‘eliminated’ in the US (not continually circulating in the population – only contracted through travel out of country). Measles is highly contagious (>90 percent infectious) and can survive airborne in a room and infect someone two hours later. Another fun fact is that measles is transmittable before it can be diagnosed – four days before the characteristic rash appears. “Measles itself is unpleasant, but the complications are dangerous. Six to 20 percent of the people who get the disease will get an ear infection, diarrhea, or even pneumonia. One out of 1000 people with measles will develop inflammation of the brain, and about one out of 1000 will die.” That sounds fun!

Ok.

Calm down, self.

I assume you love your child just like I love mine. I assume that you are trying to make good choices regarding their care. Please realize that your child does not live in a bubble. When your child gets sick, other children are exposed. My children. Why would you knowingly expose anyone to your sick, unvaccinated child after recently visiting Disneyland? That was a bone-headed move.

Why does this effect me and mine? Why is my family at risk if we are vaccinating? I’m glad you asked.

Regarding measles, there are four groups of people.

All are represented in my family.

First, the MMR vaccine results in immunity for most who receive it. Two doses provides protection that can be confirmed with blood titers. My wife is in this group.

Second, about 3% of fully vaccinated children do not develop a lasting immune response. They have low blood titers and are not protected against measles. If exposed, this group will likely get the illness. I am in this group. I was thankfully not exposed.

Third, we have the unvaccinated. My son, Eli, is ten months old. He is too young to received the MMR vaccine and thus has no protection. Whether by refusal or because they are too young, exposed unvaccinated children have a 90 percent chance of getting measles.

Fourth, there are children like my Maggie. These are children who can’t be vaccinated. Children who have cancer. Children who are immunocompromised. Children who are truly allergic to a vaccine or part of a vaccine (i.e anaphylaxis to egg). These children remain at risk. They cannot be protected, except by vaccinating people around them.

Maggie, before and after being diagnosed with cancer.

Maggie was diagnosed last August with ALL—acute lymphoblastic leukemia (blood cancer). She has had multipe rounds of chemotherapy, lumbar punctures, and surgery to implant her port. She has been admitted six times since diagnosis and spent over three weeks at Phoenix Children’s Hospital (including Halloween and New Years). She had been immunized fully, but we are unable to immunize her further until after treatments end. Her treatment will prayerfully end shortly after her 5th birthday, in January 2017.

Here is how the measles outbreak has further complicated our situation.

It was a Wednesday. Maggie had just been discharged from Phoenix Children’s Hospital after finishing her latest round of chemotherapy. That afternoon she went to the PCH East Valley Specialty Clinic for a lab draw. Everything went fine, and we were feeling good…until Sunday evening when we got the call. On Wednesday afternoon, Anna, Maggie, and Eli had been exposed to measles by another patient. Our two kids lacked the immunity to defend against measles. The only protection available was multiple shots of rubeola immune globulin (measles antibodies). There were three shots for Maggie and two shots for Eli. They screamed, but they now have some temporary protection against measles. We pray it is enough.

Eli getting multiple shots of measles antibodies

Eli and Maggie were exposed to measles on January 21. Despite the treatment noted, they could start showing signs of measles any time from now through February 11 (21 days post exposure). After a new blood test, both my wife and I were found to be immune to measles, but the children will remain in isolation until February 11.

Unvaccinating parent, thanks for screwing up our three-week “vacation” from chemotherapy. Instead of a break, we get to watch for measles symptoms and pray for no fevers (or back to the hospital we go). Thanks for making us cancel our trip to the snow this year. Maggie really wanted to see snow, but we will not risk exposing anyone else. On that note, thanks for exposing 195 children to an illness considered ‘eliminated’ from the US. Your poor choices don’t just effect your child. They affect my family and many more like us.

Please forgive my sarcasm. I am upset and just a little bit scared.

Papa bear

View original: 

To the Parent of the Unvaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Measles

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on To the Parent of the Unvaccinated Child Who Exposed My Family to Measles

Chris Christie: Parents Should Have "Choice" on Vaccines

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Update, February 2, 2015, 12:20 p.m.: In 2009, Christie wrote a letter in which he appeared to support the theory that autism may be linked to vaccinations. An excerpt from the letter, provided to MSNBC, below:

“I have met with families affected by autism from across the state and have been struck by their incredible grace and courage. Many of these families have expressed their concern over New Jersey’s highest-in-the nation vaccine mandates. I stand with them now, and will stand with them as their governor in their fight for greater parental involvement in vaccination decisions that affect their children.”

Update, February 2, 2015, 10:30 a.m.: Gov. Christie’s office released a statement amending his previous comments to reporters, saying there is “no question kids should be vaccinated.”

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie called for a “balanced” approach to childhood vaccinations, telling reporters on Monday that it’s important to provide parents a “measure of choice” in their decisions.

“Mary Pat and I have had our children vaccinated and we think that it’s an important part of being sure we protect their health and the public health,” Christie said during a press conference in Cambridge, England, where he is traveling on a trade mission. “I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well, so that’s the balance that the government has to decide.”

“Not every vaccine is created equal and not every type of disease is as great a public health threat as others,” he added.

Christie’s comments come a day after President Obama urged parents to vaccinate their children in the midst of a widening measles outbreak that started in Disneyland. The highly contagious disease has since spread to 14 states with at least 102 cases reported, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

“I understand that there are families that, in some cases, are concerned about the effect of vaccinations,” Obama said in an interview with NBC Sunday. “The science is, you know, pretty indisputable. We’ve looked at this again and again. There is every reason to get vaccinated, but there aren’t reasons to not.”

The rise in parents who choose not to have their children fully immunized has been cited as one reason for a growing number of vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks in recent years.

Credit:  

Chris Christie: Parents Should Have "Choice" on Vaccines

Posted in Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Chris Christie: Parents Should Have "Choice" on Vaccines

Even If Your Kid Doesn’t Get Measles, It’s Gonna Cost You

Mother Jones

Measles is not only highly contagious, it’s expensive to contain—especially for cash-strapped local governments. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) calculated that outbreaks in 2011—a total of just 107 cases—cost state and local taxpayers up to $5.3 million. That may not seem like a lot, but with more than triple that number of cases last year, and a growing number of unvaccinated children, the costs are really going to add up.

More stories on vaccines and outbreaks:


Vaccines Work. These 8 Charts Prove It.


Map: The High Cost of Vaccine Hysteria


How Many People Arenâ&#128;&#153;t Vaccinating Their Kids in Your State?


Measles Cases in the US are at a 20-Year High. Thanks, Anti-Vaxxers.


This PBS Special Makes The Most Powerful Argument For Vaccines Yet


Mickey Mouse Still Stricken With Measles, Thanks to the Anti-Vaxxers


If You Distrust Vaccines, You’re More Likely to Think NASA Faked the Moon Landings

In 2014, there were 23 outbreaks in the United States and 644 confirmed cases—the most since the disease was declared all but eliminated back in 2000. And at last count, there were 66 cases in six states and Mexico linked to the Disneyland outbreak, which began in December and may be far from over.

Despite whatever nonsense Dr. Bob Sears might spout, measles is no joke. The CDC has released an official health advisory warning public health departments and health care facilities of the need for greater vaccine coverage and the “importance of a prompt and appropriate public health response to measles cases and outbreaks.” State and local health agencies are ramping up efforts to contain it, especially in California, which has the most cases. Some have even begun enforcing quarantines. And all of this, as the CDC notes, costs money:

Due to its high infectiousness and the potential severity of complications, a measles outbreak often constitutes a serious public health event entailing a vigorous response from local public health departments and can involve multiple states and counties…As a result of the amount of effort and resources reallocated to the outbreak response, the economic toll in these public health departments could be significant.

The problem is expected to get worse, and more expensive, thanks to the growing numbers of people who, based on discredited science or religious convictions, refuse to have their children vaccinated.

The CDC’s 2011 report highlighted the opportunity costs associated with outbreaks, which divert resources that could be used to manage other public health problems. What’s more, especially when it involves such a communicable disease, an outbreak can create major headaches for hospitals and clinics. Thirty babies, for instance, were recently placed on home quarantine after a deliberately unvaccinated child with measles was found to have passed through the same department at the Kaiser medical center in Oakland, California.

Sherri Willis, a spokeswoman for the Alameda County Public Health Department (which has jurisdiction over Oakland) says 20 of the babies have since been cleared. But, with six confirmed cases in the county so far, investigations into who measles patients have come into contact with have become the agency’s priority. The department has had to shift its entire focus. “We are now tracking hundreds of people who came in to contact with the six cases,” she says. “It is extremely time consuming.”

Outbreaks can also stretch the resources of police departments, which have to enforce quarantines, not to mention schools and universities, which can serve as incubators. The costs are compounded, the CDC notes, by the duration of the outbreak and the number of potentially susceptible contacts a patient has had—a number that can be very high in communities where a lot of parents fail to vaccinate their children.

The World Health Organization has also stressed the financial burden of measles in comparison with the much lower cost of vaccinating people. “Complacency and unfounded scares about vaccine safety have led to a situation where measles is just waiting to strike in many countries,” Guenael Rodier, director of the Division of Communicable Diseases, Health Security and Environment at WHO/Europe, noted in a 2013 press release. “These countries could find they are hit hard economically. Scrimping on vaccination is a very expensive decision.”

Though its still unclear the extent to which the current outbreak will affect local health agencies in the longer term, Willis emphasizes that vaccine coverage in recent years has been slipping, and that parents need to step up and get real. “Measles is a vaccine-preventable disease,” she says. “The vaccine is safe. The vaccine is effective. The issue here is for people to take this disease seriously.”

Excerpt from:  

Even If Your Kid Doesn’t Get Measles, It’s Gonna Cost You

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Even If Your Kid Doesn’t Get Measles, It’s Gonna Cost You

Melinda Gates Shames Anti-Vaxxers "Who Have Forgotten What Measles Death Looks Like"

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On the heels of an increasingly widening measles outbreak at Disneyland in California, where at least 28 of the people infected were reportedly unvaccinated, Melinda Gates is urging parents to take advantage of healthcare resources in the United States and get their children vaccinated.

“We take vaccines so for granted in the United States,” Gates explained during an appearance on HuffPost Live Thursday. “Women in the developing world know the power of vaccines. They will walk 10 kilometers in the heat with their child and line up to get a vaccine because they have seen death.

In detailing the struggle parents in the developing world endure to have their children vaccinated, Gates said Americans have simply “forgotten what measles death looks like.”

Through her philanthropy work with husband Bill Gates, Melinda has long worked to help people in developing countries obtain basic healthcare treatment, including vaccine deliveries.

“I’d say to the people of the United States: We’re incredibly lucky to have that technology and we ought to take advantage of it,” she added.

In the United States, the highly contagious disease has reemerged in recent years thanks to the anti-vaccination movement and personal belief exemptions. Use of the controversial waivers is particularly prominent in California.

The recent outbreak at Disneyland has heightened the debate. According to the Associated Press, those infected range from just seven months to 70-years-old, including five park employees.

Dr. James Cherry, a specialist in pediatric infectious diseases at the University of California-Los Angeles, told the New York Times the current outbreak is “100 percent connected” to the anti-immunization movement.

“It wouldn’t have happened otherwise—it wouldn’t have gone anywhere. There are some pretty dumb people out there.”

Link: 

Melinda Gates Shames Anti-Vaxxers "Who Have Forgotten What Measles Death Looks Like"

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Melinda Gates Shames Anti-Vaxxers "Who Have Forgotten What Measles Death Looks Like"

A Drug Warrior’s Inside Look at the War on Afghanistan’s Heroin Trade

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

One of the many messes the United States is leaving behind as it formally withdraws from Afghanistan is that it’s more or less a narco state. Despite the United States spending nearly $8 billion to fight the Afghan narcotics trade, the country is producing more opium than ever. It’s unlikely to get better anytime soon: Last month, the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction reported that counternarcotics efforts in Afghanistan “are no longer a top priority.”

The roots of the problem really aren’t that complicated, says Edward Follis. “It really does come down to basic economics.” The Taliban “has decided they would exploit the economic dearth of all these people that can’t provide for themselves, and they take it from there.”

For several years, Follis headed up the Drug Enforcement Administration’s efforts in Afghanistan as the agency’s country attaché, reporting directly to the US ambassador. After chasing drug kingpins in Thailand, Mexico, and Colombia, Follis was sent to Afghanistan in 2006 and was tasked with bringing down the figures behind its narcotics trade. He spent 27 years with the agency. Today he is director of special projects for 5 Stones Intelligence, an intel and investigative firm based in Miami.

Follis recounts his experiences in his memoir (with co-author Douglas Century), The Dark Art: My Undercover Life in Global Narco-Terrorism, which was published last year. In the book, Follis recounts making drug deals with Mexican cartels, setting up phony gun deals, working deep undercover to help take down the notorious Shan United Army in Burma, and hanging out with a major Lebanese drug trafficker at Disneyland. In Afghanistan, he befriended accused Taliban financier Haji Juma Khan. While some American officials wanted to take out Khan in a drone strike, Follis claims that he convincingly argued that he should be brought in alive. Khan is now awaiting trial in New York City on charges of conspiring to distribute narcotics with to support a terrorist organization.

Continue Reading »

Continue reading here – 

A Drug Warrior’s Inside Look at the War on Afghanistan’s Heroin Trade

Posted in Anchor, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Drug Warrior’s Inside Look at the War on Afghanistan’s Heroin Trade

Disneyland Is the Latest Victim of Thin-Skinned 1-Percenters

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

If you don’t live in Southern California—or if you do, but have a life—you might not be aware of Club 33, a “secret” club at Disneyland coveted by the rich and famous as a hideway from the hoi polloi at the park. (And, not coincidentally, the only place at Disneyland that serves alcoholic beverages.) It’s so coveted, in fact, that there’s no waiting list for membership. Years ago, it got so long that Disneyland just closed it.

Today, the LA Times passes along breaking news that has outraged the 1% who are the primary (only?) denizens of the place:

For access to what is billed as “the most exclusive address in all of Disneyland” — Club 33 — many members pay $11,000 a year….The current uproar has to do with how many extra VIP cards are allotted to platinum members.

The cards allow a lucky few to enjoy many of the benefits of a member, including access to Disney parks and dining at the secretive Club 33 restaurant, tucked away in Disneyland’s New Orleans Square….But last week, platinum members received a letter that said in 2015 only the member and a spouse or domestic partner would have Club 33 benefits, while the price for the platinum level would rise to $12,000….A current platinum VIP cardholder was enraged. “It really has just turned to a money game for them.”

OMG! “It really has just turned to a money game for them.” This is mighty rich coming from someone who is almost certainly wealthy as hell and probably considers himself a rock-jawed supporter of laissez-faire capitalism. But if Disneyland raises the price and changes the terms of a product that obviously has far more demand than supply, why, it’s just an example of a bunch of ruthless money-grubbers taking advantage of the downtrodden. How dare they?

Plus he’s dead wrong anyway. First of all, last I looked Disney was a public corporation widely admired in the business world for its money-making prowess. Of course it’s a money game for them. Second, the waiting list for Club 33 is so long that it’s closed. Quite plainly, they could double or triple the price of a platinum card and keep their membership at the same level. In other words, if they really were just ruthless money-grubbers, they could instantly double or triple their revenues for Club 33 with the stroke of a pen. The fact that they haven’t done this clearly suggests some combination of loyalty to longtime members along with an understandable desire to avoid a PR headache.

Anyway, that’s Orange County for you. Home of conservative Republicans who have an abiding faith in the free market when they’re the ones setting the rules, but get in a snit when they themselves end up on the business end of the not-so-invisible hand. You can file this under the shockingly thin skins of the rich when they aren’t treated with the fawning deference they all think is their birthright.

UPDATE: Here’s a note for aficionados of behavioral economics. As near as I can tell, the outrage here is not over the modest 9 percent price increase. It’s over the loss of a perk. This is an example of people responding far more strongly to loss than to gain. And in this case it’s especially irksome because it’s the loss of a perk that allows a member to very publicly show off their status. “Going to Disneyland? Here, why don’t you take one of my VIP cards and eat at Club 33. It’s great.” This is a chance to do a favor for someone and show off your ownership of a normally invisible status symbol that money can’t buy. But now it’s gone.

Link:  

Disneyland Is the Latest Victim of Thin-Skinned 1-Percenters

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Disneyland Is the Latest Victim of Thin-Skinned 1-Percenters