Helen H. Moore's Blog, page 1005

“Text neck” is a thing: 5 frightening maladies of the digital era

Face it, we’re all addicted to our electronic devices. You might know a few lonely holdouts, determined to stay detached and live off the grid, but their numbers are diminishing. Most of us are living in an ever more wired world, dependent on instantaneous communication and information, and at a panicky loss when we can’t find our smartphones. No one wants to hear it, but we’re paying a steep price for this behavior. Our tech habits are laying ruin to our physical and mental health and abilities. Being aware of the possible pitfalls is your first line of defense against premature aging, aches and diminished brain capacity. That and unplugging more often. Here are five digital maladies you should be aware of. 1. Text Neck You see them everywhere. Teenagers, middle-aged commuters, grocery shoppers of all ages, hunched over small objects they gaze at like little miracles, their necks jutting forward and down at an oddly excruciating angle. And they just stay there, seemingly frozen, unaware. These are the legions of people giving themselves “text neck,” a thoroughly modern condition that can lay ruin to one's neck and spine. People are hunched over smartphones, engrossed in text conversations, checking Facebook, returning emails, Instagramming photos, unaware that they are putting immense strain on their necks and spines that will plague them for a lifetime. The head is heavy under the best of circumstances, a weighty 12-pound object to support. Your neck and spine work tirelessly to hold it up it and are well set up to do so. Or they were, until smartphones came along and gave everyone incentive to cock their heads forward at an unnatural angle, for hours on end. As the Washington Post explains it:

… as the neck bends forward and down, the weight on the cervical spine begins to increase. At a 15-degree angle, this weight is about 27 pounds, at 30 degrees it’s 40 pounds, at 45 degrees it’s 49 pounds, and at 60 degrees it’s 60 pounds. That’s the burden that comes with staring at a smartphone — the way millions do for hours every day, according to research published by Kenneth Hansraj in the National Library of Medicine. The study will appear next month in Surgical Technology International. Over time, researchers say, this poor posture, sometimes called “text neck,” can lead to early wear-and-tear on the spine, degeneration and even surgery.

60 pounds!!! For perspective, that’s like carrying an 8-year-old around your neck for four hours a day. The problem is especially profound for young people, Dr. Hansraj told the Post, who may unwittingly and unconsciously be ushering in a lifetime of spinal pain. Some ways he recommends to fight it: Look down at your device with your eyes. No need to bend your neck. Exercise: Move your head from left to right several times. Use your hands to provide resistance and push your head against them, first forward and then backward. Stand in a doorway with your arms extended and push your chest forward to strengthen “the muscles of good posture,” Hansraj said. 2. Hearing Loss This is depressing. Hearing loss is not just for the elderly anymore. Most of us are very likely to have diminished hearing at younger and younger ages. If you’re not already having trouble hearing normal everyday speech, that day is probably coming, and sooner than you think. That is, unless you have actively and extraordinarily protected your hearing for basically your entire life. Early and pervasive hearing loss isn’t solely a result of our digital devices, it's also a product of the everyday noise we all consider normal, but is actually at a decibel level that does damage: leaf blowers, lawn mowers, sirens, screeching subway trains, hair dryers, loud rock concerts, car alarms, even overly loud sound systems at restaurants and movies, and certain kid’s toys can all be, well, deafening. All of these loud noises set our fragile eardrums vibrating and if sustained enough and loud enough can damage the whole irreplaceable apparatus. But the widespread use of portable music devices is pushing this epidemic into the stratosphere. According to the New York Times, “a national study in 2006 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association found that among users of portable music devices, 35 percent of adults and up to 59 percent of teenagers reported listening at loud volumes.” Earbuds are potentially worse than headphones, but if whatever you are using is piping things in at a volume sufficient to drown out background noise, you might want to start learning sign language now. Hearing damage is cumulative and irreversible. Carry around some ear plugs anyway, and turn down the volume. 3. Brain Scramble What constant digital media use does to our brains is a big, seemingly speculative topic. But science is beginning to catch up, and it’s not pretty. Simply put, overuse of smartphones makes us less productive, less rested, more likely to forget things, and in a word, dumber. Lots of people spend their days at their computer and their nights checking their phones, returning texts and emails. This, according to a recentstudy conducted by University of Florida, Michigan State University and University of Washington, robs people of the crucial ability to recharge in their off hours. Productivity, not to mention mental health, are both diminished. Checking multiple devices and screens throughout the day has also perpetuated the idea that people have become better multitaskers, more able to flit between tasks, refocus quickly and get more things done, all thanks to the miracles of technology. Dream on. According to researchers, constant multitasking whittles away our ability to concentrate for sustained periods of time, kind of a prerequisite for meaningful accomplishments. Eventually, even when all the screens are shut off, our concentration is shot. “The people we talk with continually said, look, when I really have to concentrate, I turn off everything and I am laser-focused,” Stanford University professor Clifford Nass told NPR. “And unfortunately, they've developed habits of mind that make it impossible for them to be laser-focused. They're suckers for irrelevancy. They just can't keep on-task.” Read books any more? I barely do, though I do read voluminously online. It turns out I’m paying a cognitive and possible psychological toll for that. Reading on a screen is simply not as beneficial as reading in print. One study in 2014, “found that readers of a short mystery story on a Kindle were significantly worse at remembering the order of events than those who read the same story in paperback,” according to Rachel Grate at Mic. And the more you read digitally, the harder it gets to do a deep dive into an actual book. The other benefits of reading include increased empathy, decreased stress and better sleeping. Both are significantly enhanced by reading print as opposed to digital. Much has also been written about the destructive impact of the blue light emitted by digital devices on circadian rhythms, the body’s biological clock, resulting in poorer sleep and the resulting panoply of physical and mental health problems. Your inability to detach from devices will also both affect and infect the people around you, friends, work peers and family. When we lose the crucial ability to detach, everyone’s overall mental health and well-being suffers. Parenting experts have pointed out that children are scarred by having parents who are unavailable because they are constantly on their phones. So, if not for yourself, at least unplug for the sake of others you care about. Read more here. 4. Computer Face Okay, enough about the brain. Spending inordinate amounts of time in front of a computer is ruining people’s looks! Your looks! Seriously, if that doesn’t convince you to take more screen breaks, we don’t know what will. Cosmetic surgeons are reporting that more women are developing the dreaded “computer face,” a combination of permanent frown lines, wrinkles around the eyes from squinting, jowls (jowls!) and double necks from looking down for long periods of time. "If you spend most of the time looking down then the neck muscles shorten and go saggy, eventually giving you a second neck,” cosmetic surgeon Michael Prager told the Daily Mail. And because when people work and are under stress they frequently wear serious or even grumpy expressions on their faces, those lines are becoming permanently etched on younger faces. The solution: Get up, stretch your neck, change your expression, move your screen to eye level. And Botox, of course, according to plastic surgeons, anyway. No word yet on the longterm effects of the dreaded “selfie face,” but it can’t be good. 5. Computer Vision Syndrome The bad news, perhaps unsurprising, is that sitting in front of a computer screen hour after hour, week after week, year after year as many jobs require you to do can cause pain and discomfort to the eyes, blurred vision and headaches. The good news is that eye doctors have yet to find that Computer Vision Syndrome causes permanent eye damage. And there is something you can do if you are experiencing the negative consequences of sitting in front of a computer screen too much, besides getting up and doing something else, like forever, which might not be an option. A lot of this eye strain can be eliminated by making changes in your work environment. The Scheie Eye Institute at Penn Medical Center says, “Reducing glare and harsh reflections on the computer screen by modifying the lighting in the room, closing window shades, changing the contrast or brightness of the screen, or attaching a filter or hood to the monitor,” will all help. They also recommend:

“Moving the computer screen to improve the comfort of the eyes. The screen should be at or just beyond an arm's length away (about 20 to 26 inches) to give the eyes a comfortable focusing distance. The screen should also stand straight in front of the face instead of off to the side to ease eyestrain. The center of the monitor should be about four to eight inches lower than the eyes to allow the neck to relax and to lessen the exposed surface area of the eye, which will reduce dryness and itching.”

You're probably ready for a break from the screen right about now.

Face it, we’re all addicted to our electronic devices. You might know a few lonely holdouts, determined to stay detached and live off the grid, but their numbers are diminishing. Most of us are living in an ever more wired world, dependent on instantaneous communication and information, and at a panicky loss when we can’t find our smartphones. No one wants to hear it, but we’re paying a steep price for this behavior. Our tech habits are laying ruin to our physical and mental health and abilities. Being aware of the possible pitfalls is your first line of defense against premature aging, aches and diminished brain capacity. That and unplugging more often. Here are five digital maladies you should be aware of. 1. Text Neck You see them everywhere. Teenagers, middle-aged commuters, grocery shoppers of all ages, hunched over small objects they gaze at like little miracles, their necks jutting forward and down at an oddly excruciating angle. And they just stay there, seemingly frozen, unaware. These are the legions of people giving themselves “text neck,” a thoroughly modern condition that can lay ruin to one's neck and spine. People are hunched over smartphones, engrossed in text conversations, checking Facebook, returning emails, Instagramming photos, unaware that they are putting immense strain on their necks and spines that will plague them for a lifetime. The head is heavy under the best of circumstances, a weighty 12-pound object to support. Your neck and spine work tirelessly to hold it up it and are well set up to do so. Or they were, until smartphones came along and gave everyone incentive to cock their heads forward at an unnatural angle, for hours on end. As the Washington Post explains it:

… as the neck bends forward and down, the weight on the cervical spine begins to increase. At a 15-degree angle, this weight is about 27 pounds, at 30 degrees it’s 40 pounds, at 45 degrees it’s 49 pounds, and at 60 degrees it’s 60 pounds. That’s the burden that comes with staring at a smartphone — the way millions do for hours every day, according to research published by Kenneth Hansraj in the National Library of Medicine. The study will appear next month in Surgical Technology International. Over time, researchers say, this poor posture, sometimes called “text neck,” can lead to early wear-and-tear on the spine, degeneration and even surgery.

60 pounds!!! For perspective, that’s like carrying an 8-year-old around your neck for four hours a day. The problem is especially profound for young people, Dr. Hansraj told the Post, who may unwittingly and unconsciously be ushering in a lifetime of spinal pain. Some ways he recommends to fight it: Look down at your device with your eyes. No need to bend your neck. Exercise: Move your head from left to right several times. Use your hands to provide resistance and push your head against them, first forward and then backward. Stand in a doorway with your arms extended and push your chest forward to strengthen “the muscles of good posture,” Hansraj said. 2. Hearing Loss This is depressing. Hearing loss is not just for the elderly anymore. Most of us are very likely to have diminished hearing at younger and younger ages. If you’re not already having trouble hearing normal everyday speech, that day is probably coming, and sooner than you think. That is, unless you have actively and extraordinarily protected your hearing for basically your entire life. Early and pervasive hearing loss isn’t solely a result of our digital devices, it's also a product of the everyday noise we all consider normal, but is actually at a decibel level that does damage: leaf blowers, lawn mowers, sirens, screeching subway trains, hair dryers, loud rock concerts, car alarms, even overly loud sound systems at restaurants and movies, and certain kid’s toys can all be, well, deafening. All of these loud noises set our fragile eardrums vibrating and if sustained enough and loud enough can damage the whole irreplaceable apparatus. But the widespread use of portable music devices is pushing this epidemic into the stratosphere. According to the New York Times, “a national study in 2006 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association found that among users of portable music devices, 35 percent of adults and up to 59 percent of teenagers reported listening at loud volumes.” Earbuds are potentially worse than headphones, but if whatever you are using is piping things in at a volume sufficient to drown out background noise, you might want to start learning sign language now. Hearing damage is cumulative and irreversible. Carry around some ear plugs anyway, and turn down the volume. 3. Brain Scramble What constant digital media use does to our brains is a big, seemingly speculative topic. But science is beginning to catch up, and it’s not pretty. Simply put, overuse of smartphones makes us less productive, less rested, more likely to forget things, and in a word, dumber. Lots of people spend their days at their computer and their nights checking their phones, returning texts and emails. This, according to a recentstudy conducted by University of Florida, Michigan State University and University of Washington, robs people of the crucial ability to recharge in their off hours. Productivity, not to mention mental health, are both diminished. Checking multiple devices and screens throughout the day has also perpetuated the idea that people have become better multitaskers, more able to flit between tasks, refocus quickly and get more things done, all thanks to the miracles of technology. Dream on. According to researchers, constant multitasking whittles away our ability to concentrate for sustained periods of time, kind of a prerequisite for meaningful accomplishments. Eventually, even when all the screens are shut off, our concentration is shot. “The people we talk with continually said, look, when I really have to concentrate, I turn off everything and I am laser-focused,” Stanford University professor Clifford Nass told NPR. “And unfortunately, they've developed habits of mind that make it impossible for them to be laser-focused. They're suckers for irrelevancy. They just can't keep on-task.” Read books any more? I barely do, though I do read voluminously online. It turns out I’m paying a cognitive and possible psychological toll for that. Reading on a screen is simply not as beneficial as reading in print. One study in 2014, “found that readers of a short mystery story on a Kindle were significantly worse at remembering the order of events than those who read the same story in paperback,” according to Rachel Grate at Mic. And the more you read digitally, the harder it gets to do a deep dive into an actual book. The other benefits of reading include increased empathy, decreased stress and better sleeping. Both are significantly enhanced by reading print as opposed to digital. Much has also been written about the destructive impact of the blue light emitted by digital devices on circadian rhythms, the body’s biological clock, resulting in poorer sleep and the resulting panoply of physical and mental health problems. Your inability to detach from devices will also both affect and infect the people around you, friends, work peers and family. When we lose the crucial ability to detach, everyone’s overall mental health and well-being suffers. Parenting experts have pointed out that children are scarred by having parents who are unavailable because they are constantly on their phones. So, if not for yourself, at least unplug for the sake of others you care about. Read more here. 4. Computer Face Okay, enough about the brain. Spending inordinate amounts of time in front of a computer is ruining people’s looks! Your looks! Seriously, if that doesn’t convince you to take more screen breaks, we don’t know what will. Cosmetic surgeons are reporting that more women are developing the dreaded “computer face,” a combination of permanent frown lines, wrinkles around the eyes from squinting, jowls (jowls!) and double necks from looking down for long periods of time. "If you spend most of the time looking down then the neck muscles shorten and go saggy, eventually giving you a second neck,” cosmetic surgeon Michael Prager told the Daily Mail. And because when people work and are under stress they frequently wear serious or even grumpy expressions on their faces, those lines are becoming permanently etched on younger faces. The solution: Get up, stretch your neck, change your expression, move your screen to eye level. And Botox, of course, according to plastic surgeons, anyway. No word yet on the longterm effects of the dreaded “selfie face,” but it can’t be good. 5. Computer Vision Syndrome The bad news, perhaps unsurprising, is that sitting in front of a computer screen hour after hour, week after week, year after year as many jobs require you to do can cause pain and discomfort to the eyes, blurred vision and headaches. The good news is that eye doctors have yet to find that Computer Vision Syndrome causes permanent eye damage. And there is something you can do if you are experiencing the negative consequences of sitting in front of a computer screen too much, besides getting up and doing something else, like forever, which might not be an option. A lot of this eye strain can be eliminated by making changes in your work environment. The Scheie Eye Institute at Penn Medical Center says, “Reducing glare and harsh reflections on the computer screen by modifying the lighting in the room, closing window shades, changing the contrast or brightness of the screen, or attaching a filter or hood to the monitor,” will all help. They also recommend:

“Moving the computer screen to improve the comfort of the eyes. The screen should be at or just beyond an arm's length away (about 20 to 26 inches) to give the eyes a comfortable focusing distance. The screen should also stand straight in front of the face instead of off to the side to ease eyestrain. The center of the monitor should be about four to eight inches lower than the eyes to allow the neck to relax and to lessen the exposed surface area of the eye, which will reduce dryness and itching.”

You're probably ready for a break from the screen right about now.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 15:30

Jeb is the worst, part infinity: Bush says “anchor babies” remark is “frankly more related to Asian people”

Jeb Bush said today that he has no worries that his use of the offensive "anchor baby" term would harm his ability to win the Hispanic vote, because he thinks it's actually "more related to Asian people." During his obligatory visit to the U.S.-Mexico border as one of 17 Republicans vying for the GOP presidential nomination, Bush once again found himself at the center of a controversy surrounding his use of the derogatory reference to the U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants. Bush attempted to clarify that when he said "anchor babies" during a radio interview last week, he meant Asians who come in and "take advantage" of birthright citizenship not Hispanics. Bush blamed Hillary Clinton's campaign for suggesting the term is derogatory, calling the controversy "ludicrous." Bush, who's wife is a Mexican immigrant, claimed that "frankly, it's more related to Asian people coming into our country, having children, in that organized effort taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship" and said he wasn't worried that his use of the term would impact his relationship with Hispanic voters:

What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there's organized efforts—and frankly it's more related to Asian people—coming into our country, having children, in that organized efforts, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship. I support the 14th amendment. Nothing I've said should be viewed as derogatory toward immigrants at all.

Bush then called for people to "step back and chill out" on political correctness, decrying that he had been unfairly taken out of context: Clinton's campaign immediately blasted Bush's clarification, tweeting that "whether he meant Latinos, Asians, or other immigrants he's just WRONG." (h/t Gawker)Jeb Bush said today that he has no worries that his use of the offensive "anchor baby" term would harm his ability to win the Hispanic vote, because he thinks it's actually "more related to Asian people." During his obligatory visit to the U.S.-Mexico border as one of 17 Republicans vying for the GOP presidential nomination, Bush once again found himself at the center of a controversy surrounding his use of the derogatory reference to the U.S. born children of undocumented immigrants. Bush attempted to clarify that when he said "anchor babies" during a radio interview last week, he meant Asians who come in and "take advantage" of birthright citizenship not Hispanics. Bush blamed Hillary Clinton's campaign for suggesting the term is derogatory, calling the controversy "ludicrous." Bush, who's wife is a Mexican immigrant, claimed that "frankly, it's more related to Asian people coming into our country, having children, in that organized effort taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship" and said he wasn't worried that his use of the term would impact his relationship with Hispanic voters:

What I was talking about was the specific case of fraud being committed where there's organized efforts—and frankly it's more related to Asian people—coming into our country, having children, in that organized efforts, taking advantage of a noble concept, which is birthright citizenship. I support the 14th amendment. Nothing I've said should be viewed as derogatory toward immigrants at all.

Bush then called for people to "step back and chill out" on political correctness, decrying that he had been unfairly taken out of context: Clinton's campaign immediately blasted Bush's clarification, tweeting that "whether he meant Latinos, Asians, or other immigrants he's just WRONG." (h/t Gawker)

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 14:18

Scott Walker is just begging you to notice him: Now he wants Obama to cancel Chinese leader’s visit

Republican presidential frontrunner and pacesetter Donald Trump blamed today's massive global stock sell-off on China's slumping economy this morning, so naturally, this afternoon, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker called on President Barack Obama to cancel an upcoming state visit by Chinese President Xi Jinping. Minutes after the opening bell today, the Dow Jones industrial average plunged 1,089 points before rebounding only to eventually close 588 points down as China's Shanghai composite index saw an 8.5 percent drop. In an apparent rush to one-up both Donald Trump's warning of an impending Chinese caused U.S. economic depression and Gov. Chris Christie's attempt to pin the sell-off to President Obama, Walker, whose 2016 campaign has faltered in recent weeks, added his own political analysis -- calling on Obama to spurn the leader of an economic and geopolitical powerhouse:

Americans are struggling to cope with the fall in today’s markets driven in part by China’s slowing economy and the fact that they actively manipulate their economy. Rather than honoring Chinese President Xi Jinping with an official state visit next month, President Obama should focus on holding China accountable over its increasing attempts to undermine U.S. interests.

Walker said it was time for the Obama administration to hold China “accountable” for recent cyberattacks on the U.S. office of personnel management, rumored to have come from the country. Walker also cited China's "persistent persecution of Christians," before demanding that President Obama cancel next month's planned visit. “There’s serious work to be done rather than pomp and circumstance,” Walker said: [embedtweet id=635902042553339904]

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 13:44

Tracy Morgan has married his longtime girlfriend

Fourteen months after the horrific car accident that left him severely injured and killed fellow passenger James McNair, Tracy Morgan seems well on the road to recovery. In October, the “Saturday Night Live” alum will return to host the show, marking his first major television appearance since the crash. And in a milestone of a more personal nature, People reports Morgan his longtime fiancee Megan Wollover tied the knot in an emotional ceremony Sunday night. In an interview with People back in June, Morgan told the magazine that he was undergoing intensive physical therapy in the hopes that he might eventually be able to walk down the aisle with his wife. “I don’t want to walk my wife down the aisle with a cane or in a wheelchair,” said Morgan, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident as well as a broken leg and ribs. “So I had to go hard with the therapy… I had to get better. There was no ifs, ands or butts about it.” According to People, there was “not a cane in sight” at Sunday’s wedding, which took place in front of close friends and family. "After almost losing Tracy last year, I am so grateful to finally be married to the love of my life,” Wollover told People. "We have been through so much and our love is stronger for it.”Fourteen months after the horrific car accident that left him severely injured and killed fellow passenger James McNair, Tracy Morgan seems well on the road to recovery. In October, the “Saturday Night Live” alum will return to host the show, marking his first major television appearance since the crash. And in a milestone of a more personal nature, People reports Morgan his longtime fiancee Megan Wollover tied the knot in an emotional ceremony Sunday night. In an interview with People back in June, Morgan told the magazine that he was undergoing intensive physical therapy in the hopes that he might eventually be able to walk down the aisle with his wife. “I don’t want to walk my wife down the aisle with a cane or in a wheelchair,” said Morgan, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident as well as a broken leg and ribs. “So I had to go hard with the therapy… I had to get better. There was no ifs, ands or butts about it.” According to People, there was “not a cane in sight” at Sunday’s wedding, which took place in front of close friends and family. "After almost losing Tracy last year, I am so grateful to finally be married to the love of my life,” Wollover told People. "We have been through so much and our love is stronger for it.”Fourteen months after the horrific car accident that left him severely injured and killed fellow passenger James McNair, Tracy Morgan seems well on the road to recovery. In October, the “Saturday Night Live” alum will return to host the show, marking his first major television appearance since the crash. And in a milestone of a more personal nature, People reports Morgan his longtime fiancee Megan Wollover tied the knot in an emotional ceremony Sunday night. In an interview with People back in June, Morgan told the magazine that he was undergoing intensive physical therapy in the hopes that he might eventually be able to walk down the aisle with his wife. “I don’t want to walk my wife down the aisle with a cane or in a wheelchair,” said Morgan, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident as well as a broken leg and ribs. “So I had to go hard with the therapy… I had to get better. There was no ifs, ands or butts about it.” According to People, there was “not a cane in sight” at Sunday’s wedding, which took place in front of close friends and family. "After almost losing Tracy last year, I am so grateful to finally be married to the love of my life,” Wollover told People. "We have been through so much and our love is stronger for it.”Fourteen months after the horrific car accident that left him severely injured and killed fellow passenger James McNair, Tracy Morgan seems well on the road to recovery. In October, the “Saturday Night Live” alum will return to host the show, marking his first major television appearance since the crash. And in a milestone of a more personal nature, People reports Morgan his longtime fiancee Megan Wollover tied the knot in an emotional ceremony Sunday night. In an interview with People back in June, Morgan told the magazine that he was undergoing intensive physical therapy in the hopes that he might eventually be able to walk down the aisle with his wife. “I don’t want to walk my wife down the aisle with a cane or in a wheelchair,” said Morgan, who suffered a traumatic brain injury in the accident as well as a broken leg and ribs. “So I had to go hard with the therapy… I had to get better. There was no ifs, ands or butts about it.” According to People, there was “not a cane in sight” at Sunday’s wedding, which took place in front of close friends and family. "After almost losing Tracy last year, I am so grateful to finally be married to the love of my life,” Wollover told People. "We have been through so much and our love is stronger for it.”

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 12:54

The line-up for the first week of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert” was just announced — and you’re going to want to see this

"The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" lineup is the gift that keeps on giving. Two weeks ago, it was announced that presidential candidate Jeb Bush would be joining George Clooney for the first (Sept. 8) episode -- at which point, Salon declared the lineup officially and "totally bonkers." Today, CBS has ushered in even more big, marquee-names for the first week of the show. That list includes actors, politicians and even tech CEOs. Below, the official roster for Sept. 8-11: September 8: George Clooney, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush Musical performance: Jon Batiste and Stay Human September 9: Scarlett Johansson, SpaceX and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk Musical performance: Kendrick Lamar September 10: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Musical performance: Toby Keith September 11: Amy Schumer, Stephen King Musical performance: Troubled Waters"The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" lineup is the gift that keeps on giving. Two weeks ago, it was announced that presidential candidate Jeb Bush would be joining George Clooney for the first (Sept. 8) episode -- at which point, Salon declared the lineup officially and "totally bonkers." Today, CBS has ushered in even more big, marquee-names for the first week of the show. That list includes actors, politicians and even tech CEOs. Below, the official roster for Sept. 8-11: September 8: George Clooney, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush Musical performance: Jon Batiste and Stay Human September 9: Scarlett Johansson, SpaceX and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk Musical performance: Kendrick Lamar September 10: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Musical performance: Toby Keith September 11: Amy Schumer, Stephen King Musical performance: Troubled Waters"The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" lineup is the gift that keeps on giving. Two weeks ago, it was announced that presidential candidate Jeb Bush would be joining George Clooney for the first (Sept. 8) episode -- at which point, Salon declared the lineup officially and "totally bonkers." Today, CBS has ushered in even more big, marquee-names for the first week of the show. That list includes actors, politicians and even tech CEOs. Below, the official roster for Sept. 8-11: September 8: George Clooney, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush Musical performance: Jon Batiste and Stay Human September 9: Scarlett Johansson, SpaceX and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk Musical performance: Kendrick Lamar September 10: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Musical performance: Toby Keith September 11: Amy Schumer, Stephen King Musical performance: Troubled Waters"The Late Show With Stephen Colbert" lineup is the gift that keeps on giving. Two weeks ago, it was announced that presidential candidate Jeb Bush would be joining George Clooney for the first (Sept. 8) episode -- at which point, Salon declared the lineup officially and "totally bonkers." Today, CBS has ushered in even more big, marquee-names for the first week of the show. That list includes actors, politicians and even tech CEOs. Below, the official roster for Sept. 8-11: September 8: George Clooney, Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush Musical performance: Jon Batiste and Stay Human September 9: Scarlett Johansson, SpaceX and Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk Musical performance: Kendrick Lamar September 10: Uber CEO Travis Kalanick Musical performance: Toby Keith September 11: Amy Schumer, Stephen King Musical performance: Troubled Waters

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 12:14

Antibiotic-resistant superbugs found lurking in 1 in 5 conventional ground beef samples

If that raw hamburger meat you bought to cook for dinner hasn't given you a stomach ache yet, this might: according to a Consumer Reports investigation, store-bought ground beef is teeming with dangerous bacteria, including "superbugs" resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, as well as a whole lot of poop. That's a big problem, the report warns, because of Americans' penchant for under-cooked meat. But the study, which analyzed 300 packages of meat purchased from grocery, big-box, and natural food stores across 26 U.S. cities, found some important differences dependent on how the beef was raised: either conventionally -- in grain and soy feedlots where food is supplemented with antibiotics and other growth-promoting drugs -- or what the report terms "sustainably": meaning, in this case, that no antibiotics were used, and which also could include organic or grass-fed cattle. According to the researchers, conventionally raised samples turned out to have more bacteria, in general. And 18 percent contained at least one strain of bacteria resistant to the drugs most commonly used in human medicine, compared to just 9 percent of more sustainably raised samples, and 6 percent of grass-fed. CR-Health-Where-Superbugs-Lurk-Chart-08-15

CR-Health-Where-Superbugs-Lurk-Chart-08-15

The use of low-level antibiotics on feedlots -- including some that are important to human medicine -- may be responsible for the discrepancy. Consumer Reports suggests that overall higher amount of bacteria in conventional beef, meanwhile, may be a function of the conditions in which the animals are raised, in cramped, feces-ridden, stress-producing spaces; fed, with diets can include "candy, chicken coop waste and the slaughterhouse remains of pigs and chickens; and slaughtered, in a rapid manner that can increase the odds of contamination occurring. It's all reason, per Consumer Reports, to look at labels, and strive to purchase sustainably raised beef "whenever possible." Doing so won't ensure a safe meal, however. Because while a higher proportion of conventional beef tested positive for superbugs, each and every sample tested by Consumer Reports was found to contain either enterococcus and/or nontoxin-producing E. coli, which signify fecal contamination. And 10 percent of all samples contained a strain of S. aureus that can make you sick even if you fully cook your meat. CR-Health-How-Much-Bacteria-Chart-08-15

Anyone else craving a veggie burger?If that raw hamburger meat you bought to cook for dinner hasn't given you a stomach ache yet, this might: according to a Consumer Reports investigation, store-bought ground beef is teeming with dangerous bacteria, including "superbugs" resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, as well as a whole lot of poop. That's a big problem, the report warns, because of Americans' penchant for under-cooked meat. But the study, which analyzed 300 packages of meat purchased from grocery, big-box, and natural food stores across 26 U.S. cities, found some important differences dependent on how the beef was raised: either conventionally -- in grain and soy feedlots where food is supplemented with antibiotics and other growth-promoting drugs -- or what the report terms "sustainably": meaning, in this case, that no antibiotics were used, and which also could include organic or grass-fed cattle. According to the researchers, conventionally raised samples turned out to have more bacteria, in general. And 18 percent contained at least one strain of bacteria resistant to the drugs most commonly used in human medicine, compared to just 9 percent of more sustainably raised samples, and 6 percent of grass-fed. CR-Health-Where-Superbugs-Lurk-Chart-08-15

The use of low-level antibiotics on feedlots -- including some that are important to human medicine -- may be responsible for the discrepancy. Consumer Reports suggests that overall higher amount of bacteria in conventional beef, meanwhile, may be a function of the conditions in which the animals are raised, in cramped, feces-ridden, stress-producing spaces; fed, with diets can include "candy, chicken coop waste and the slaughterhouse remains of pigs and chickens; and slaughtered, in a rapid manner that can increase the odds of contamination occurring. It's all reason, per Consumer Reports, to look at labels, and strive to purchase sustainably raised beef "whenever possible." Doing so won't ensure a safe meal, however. Because while a higher proportion of conventional beef tested positive for superbugs, each and every sample tested by Consumer Reports was found to contain either enterococcus and/or nontoxin-producing E. coli, which signify fecal contamination. And 10 percent of all samples contained a strain of S. aureus that can make you sick even if you fully cook your meat. CR-Health-How-Much-Bacteria-Chart-08-15

Anyone else craving a veggie burger?If that raw hamburger meat you bought to cook for dinner hasn't given you a stomach ache yet, this might: according to a Consumer Reports investigation, store-bought ground beef is teeming with dangerous bacteria, including "superbugs" resistant to three or more classes of antibiotics, as well as a whole lot of poop. That's a big problem, the report warns, because of Americans' penchant for under-cooked meat. But the study, which analyzed 300 packages of meat purchased from grocery, big-box, and natural food stores across 26 U.S. cities, found some important differences dependent on how the beef was raised: either conventionally -- in grain and soy feedlots where food is supplemented with antibiotics and other growth-promoting drugs -- or what the report terms "sustainably": meaning, in this case, that no antibiotics were used, and which also could include organic or grass-fed cattle. According to the researchers, conventionally raised samples turned out to have more bacteria, in general. And 18 percent contained at least one strain of bacteria resistant to the drugs most commonly used in human medicine, compared to just 9 percent of more sustainably raised samples, and 6 percent of grass-fed. CR-Health-Where-Superbugs-Lurk-Chart-08-15

The use of low-level antibiotics on feedlots -- including some that are important to human medicine -- may be responsible for the discrepancy. Consumer Reports suggests that overall higher amount of bacteria in conventional beef, meanwhile, may be a function of the conditions in which the animals are raised, in cramped, feces-ridden, stress-producing spaces; fed, with diets can include "candy, chicken coop waste and the slaughterhouse remains of pigs and chickens; and slaughtered, in a rapid manner that can increase the odds of contamination occurring. It's all reason, per Consumer Reports, to look at labels, and strive to purchase sustainably raised beef "whenever possible." Doing so won't ensure a safe meal, however. Because while a higher proportion of conventional beef tested positive for superbugs, each and every sample tested by Consumer Reports was found to contain either enterococcus and/or nontoxin-producing E. coli, which signify fecal contamination. And 10 percent of all samples contained a strain of S. aureus that can make you sick even if you fully cook your meat. CR-Health-How-Much-Bacteria-Chart-08-15

Anyone else craving a veggie burger?

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 12:13

Scott Walker digs himself an even deeper hole: How his immigration morass just got worse

It is all too appropriate that the 2016 Republican presidential nominating contest has been roiled by an argument over birthright citizenship. It’s an issue that has traction mainly among some fringey conservative legal thinkers and grossly nativist talk radio hosts who believe that the 14th Amendment is being wrongly interpreted to provide children of undocumented immigrants with U.S. citizenship. Over the past few years the GOP has happily ceded the immigration debate to those same fringe elements, and now they have a high-wattage champion in Donald Trump, who wants to end birthright citizenship as part of his draconian and illegal plan for halting undocumented immigration. Trump’s proposal has forced other candidates to choose a side: do they stand with the nativists, or do they adhere to the longstanding interpretation of the Constitution? It’s a tough choice, given the political risks, but Wisconsin governor Scott Walker thinks he’s found a third way: mumble and hand-wave in the hope that the whole issue just sort of disappears. As Jim Newell wrote this morning, Walker’s take on the birthright citizenship issue last week was a hot mess of vague and contradictory nonsense in which he seemed to take a position in favor of ending it, then clarified that he hadn’t taken a position, and then re-clarified that he wouldn’t take a position. Yesterday on ABC News, he added yet another layer to this delicious parfait of incoherence and obfuscation: he doesn’t support ending birthright citizenship, and any discussion of the issue a distraction from what really matters:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I understand that's what you feel we have to address, but this is simply a yes or no question. Do you support that line of the Fourteenth Amendment? WALKER: Well, I said the law is there. And we need to enforce the laws including those that are in the Constitution. My point is having this debate about anything else when we don't have politicians who are committed to actually securing the border and enforcing the laws, which means very simply in our country e-verify. Making sure that every employer ensure that the people working for them are legal to work in this state -- in this country. That will resolve the problems you're talking about and that's what I've been talking about this week. STEPHANOPOULOS: So you're not seeking to repeal or alter the Fourteenth Amendment. WALKER: No. My point is any discussion that goes beyond securing the border and enforcing the laws are things that should be a red flag to voters out there, who for years have heard lip service from politicians and are understandably angry because those politicians haven't been committed to following through on those promises.

Walker is already viewed suspiciously by the hardline anti-immigrant elements of the GOP’s conservative base given his flip-flop on a pathway to citizenship. This latest bit of stumbling incoherence certainly won’t do anything to improve that relationship. Opponents of birthright citizenship believe (against the evidence) that pregnant immigrant women are crossing the border in droves to give birth and cash in on their children’s citizenship status. They see it as one of the primary drivers of undocumented immigration. Walker struggled for a week to provide an answer on what he’d do to change that, and then he settled on “nothing because it’s not as important as other stuff.” The policy Walker is proposing in lieu of altering the Constitution is still absurdly harsh and no more realistic. He’s promising to step up enforcement to such a high degree that the whole issue of birthright citizenship becomes moot – lock down the border and deport enough people, he argues, and you don’t have to worry about children of immigrants obtaining citizenship. Even if this lame evasiveness doesn’t end up costing Walker support among immigration hardliners, he’s still setting himself up for problems down the road, should he win the Republican nomination. A Univision poll of Latino voters released last month tested several Republican candidates in head-to-head match-ups with Hillary Clinton, and Walker drew a miserable 20 percent – seven points lower than Mitt Romney’s abysmal Latino support in 2012. For a party that recognizes the need to expand its demographic appeal, that’s a bad place to start, and Walker's plan to resolve the birthright citizenship question through mass deportation isn't going to make things better.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 11:32

Scott Walker’s stunning implosion: Can this dope’s campaign be saved?

The impression is fast setting in that Scott Walker, former King of Iowa, is a nonsense person and a ridiculous presidential candidate. What's been the hot topic over the past week? Ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. That's what Donald Trump wants to do, either through constitutional amendment or aggressively court-challenging statute. This isn't a new conservative idea, and it's something that plenty of other candidates have happily subscribed to for a conservative leg-up in the field. It's definitely not what RNC chairman Reince Priebus wants them talking about right now, but Reince Priebus can go suck an egg. Where's Scott Walker been on this? Unclear. While many outlets interpreted him earlier this week saying that he did support ending birthright citizenship in an interview with NBC's Kasie Hunt, to us it read as more of a dodge. The "yeah" below was more of an acknowledgement that a question was directed towards him, rather than a positive reply to that question.

KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended? SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward — HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship? WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country. HUNT: And you should deport the children of people who are illegal immigrants? WALKER: I didn’t say that — I said you have to enforce the law, which to me is focusing on E-Verify.

His campaign later "clarified" Walker's rambling mess by certifying the nonsensical dodge: “We have to enforce the laws, keep people from coming here, enforce E-Verify to stop the jobs magnet, and by addressing the root problems we will end the birthright citizenship problem.” Scott Walker had a whole several days to sharpen up that position before he was asked again. Does he support ending birthright citizenship or not? This is a yes-or-no question on a constitutional issue. Or, whatever, just pull a Chris Christie and say we'll have to "reexamine" it. That's fine! Either yes, no, or maybe would've been a better answer than the one Walker gave CNBC's John Harwood late last week. Like any great leader, he boldly, defiantly, bravely, ardently held his ground that... he has absolutely no opinion about this thing that he should have an opinion on.

"I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," the 2016 Republican presidential hopeful said. Only after securing America's borders, he explained, is it appropriate to address the issue of birthright citizenship.

Only after the border is secure!, whatever that even means, will he share his opinion on the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is among the better whiffs we've seen recently, perhaps going back to Jeb Bush saying he couldn't give his opinion on the Iraq war because it would offend the troops. What's with this dope? It's even odder because his team had just made a big show of telling the New York Times that it was adjusting from a laconic, walled-off posture to a more assertive, Trumpian, anti-establishment one. "In a blunt self-critique," the Times reported, "Mr. Walker acknowledged on a private conference call with donors on Monday that voters had found him passionless. He announced a reset of his campaign, according to a participant in the call, in which he would take on the Republican establishment to show that, like Donald J. Trump, he, too, strongly opposed the status quo." And how did that "reset" play out in the first few days of his launch? KASIE HUNT: Do you support ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants? SCOTT WALKER: I uhh... snarf... *VOMITS* [three days pass] JOHN HARWOOD: Do you support ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants? SCOTT WALKER: Umm so umm... *EXPLOSIVE PROJECTILE VOMIT* Chin up, Scott.The impression is fast setting in that Scott Walker, former King of Iowa, is a nonsense person and a ridiculous presidential candidate. What's been the hot topic over the past week? Ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants. That's what Donald Trump wants to do, either through constitutional amendment or aggressively court-challenging statute. This isn't a new conservative idea, and it's something that plenty of other candidates have happily subscribed to for a conservative leg-up in the field. It's definitely not what RNC chairman Reince Priebus wants them talking about right now, but Reince Priebus can go suck an egg. Where's Scott Walker been on this? Unclear. While many outlets interpreted him earlier this week saying that he did support ending birthright citizenship in an interview with NBC's Kasie Hunt, to us it read as more of a dodge. The "yeah" below was more of an acknowledgement that a question was directed towards him, rather than a positive reply to that question.

KASIE HUNT: Do you think that birthright citizenship should be ended? SCOTT WALKER: Well, like I said, Harry Reid said it’s not right for this country — I think that’s something we should, yeah, absolutely, going forward — HUNT: We should end birthright citizenship? WALKER: Yeah, to me it’s about enforcing the laws in this country. And I’ve been very clear, I think you enforce the laws, and I think it’s important to send a message that we’re going to enforce the laws, no matter how people come here we’re going to enforce the laws in this country. HUNT: And you should deport the children of people who are illegal immigrants? WALKER: I didn’t say that — I said you have to enforce the law, which to me is focusing on E-Verify.

His campaign later "clarified" Walker's rambling mess by certifying the nonsensical dodge: “We have to enforce the laws, keep people from coming here, enforce E-Verify to stop the jobs magnet, and by addressing the root problems we will end the birthright citizenship problem.” Scott Walker had a whole several days to sharpen up that position before he was asked again. Does he support ending birthright citizenship or not? This is a yes-or-no question on a constitutional issue. Or, whatever, just pull a Chris Christie and say we'll have to "reexamine" it. That's fine! Either yes, no, or maybe would've been a better answer than the one Walker gave CNBC's John Harwood late last week. Like any great leader, he boldly, defiantly, bravely, ardently held his ground that... he has absolutely no opinion about this thing that he should have an opinion on.

"I'm not taking a position on it one way or the other," the 2016 Republican presidential hopeful said. Only after securing America's borders, he explained, is it appropriate to address the issue of birthright citizenship.

Only after the border is secure!, whatever that even means, will he share his opinion on the citizenship clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This is among the better whiffs we've seen recently, perhaps going back to Jeb Bush saying he couldn't give his opinion on the Iraq war because it would offend the troops. What's with this dope? It's even odder because his team had just made a big show of telling the New York Times that it was adjusting from a laconic, walled-off posture to a more assertive, Trumpian, anti-establishment one. "In a blunt self-critique," the Times reported, "Mr. Walker acknowledged on a private conference call with donors on Monday that voters had found him passionless. He announced a reset of his campaign, according to a participant in the call, in which he would take on the Republican establishment to show that, like Donald J. Trump, he, too, strongly opposed the status quo." And how did that "reset" play out in the first few days of his launch? KASIE HUNT: Do you support ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants? SCOTT WALKER: I uhh... snarf... *VOMITS* [three days pass] JOHN HARWOOD: Do you support ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants? SCOTT WALKER: Umm so umm... *EXPLOSIVE PROJECTILE VOMIT* Chin up, Scott.

View more on Helen H. Moore's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 24, 2015 11:20

13-year-old “Girl Meets World” star pens powerful essay on intersectional feminism: “The way a black woman experiences sexism and inequality is different”

13-year-old "Girl Meets World” star Rowan Blanchard has already proven herself wise beyond her years, speaking about the #HeForShe campaign at UN Women’s annual conference about gender inequality in June. Now, in a powerful essay posted to her Tumblr and Instagram, the Disney star shared her thoughts on intersectional feminism, writing "The way a black woman experiences sexism and inequality is different from the way a white woman experiences sexism and inequality. Likewise with trans-women and Hispanic women. While white women are making 78 cents to the dollar, Native American women are making 65 cents, black women are making 64 cents, and Hispanic women are making 54 cents.” After name-checking law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw and 16-year-old "Hunger Games” actress Amandla Stenberg, who made waves earlier this year with a video on cultural appropriation, Blanchard concludes: “To only acknowledge feminism from a one sided view when the literal DEFINITION is the equality of the sexes is not feminism at all,” Blanchard continued. “We need to be talking about this more. Discussion leads to change.” UN Women Ambassador Emma Watson tweeted her support for Blanchard’s essay yesterday, writing ,"This is called 'hitting the nail on the head’. Read the full essay on Blanchard’s Instagram, or embedded in the tweet below: https://twitter.com/EmWatson/status/6... "Girl Meets World” star Rowan Blanchard has already proven herself wise beyond her years, speaking about the #HeForShe campaign at UN Women’s annual conference about gender inequality in June. Now, in a powerful essay posted to her Tumblr and Instagram, the Disney star shared her thoughts on intersectional feminism, writing "The way a black woman experiences sexism and inequality is different from the way a white woman experiences sexism and inequality. Likewise with trans-women and Hispanic women. While white women are making 78 cents to the dollar, Native American women are making 65 cents, black women are making 64 cents, and Hispanic women are making 54 cents.” After name-checking law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw and 16-year-old "Hunger Games” actress Amandla Stenberg, who made waves earlier this year with a video on cultural appropriation, Blanchard concludes: “To only acknowledge feminism from a one sided view when the literal DEFINITION is the equality of the sexes is not feminism at all,” Blanchard continued. “We need to be talking about this more. Discussion leads to change.” UN Women Ambassador Emma Watson tweeted her support for Blanchard’s essay yesterday, writing ,"This is called 'hitting the nail on the head’. Read the full essay on Blanchard’s Instagram, or embedded in the tweet below: https://twitter.com/EmWatson/status/6...