The sister of the first Ebola patient diagnosed in the United States says he told relatives he notified officials the first time he went to the hospital that he was visiting from Liberia.
Mai Wureh says her brother, Thomas Eric Duncan, went to a Dallas emergency room on Friday and they sent him home with antibiotics. She says he said hospital officials asked for his Social Security number and he said that he didn’t have one because he was visiting from Liberia.
In a news conference Wednesday, Dr. Mark Lester confirmed that a nurse asked Duncan on his first visit whether he had been in an area affected by the Ebola outbreak that has killed thousands in West Africa, but that “information was not fully communicated throughout the whole team.”
Giving the benefit of the doubt to provisions in this bill to prevent abuse, it looks really sensible to me. Finally a mechanism with review and due process built in.
From the Supreme Court decision that affirmed our right to bear arms an individual right
“Nothing in our opinion, should be taken to cast doubt on long standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill.”
The pro-gun crowd will be foaming, but Gov. Jerry Brown today signed into law AB 1014, by Assemblywoman Nancy Skinner (D-Berkeley), that will let family members or police seek a court order to temporarily remove lawfully owned weapons from the home of someone deemed at risk of committing violence.
It is just the kind of reasonable approach to a deadly problem that gun-owners ought to embrace.
The Gun Violence Restraining Order bill arose after the horror of the Isla Vista rampage this year, and stands as a common-sense approach to dealing with a persistent problem in American society: mentally unstable individuals in possession of firearms.
And while the gun-rights folks dislike the measure and invent all sorts of abuse scenarios — ex-spouses or ex-lovers dropping a dime on each other out of spite — the law has protections that would make that difficult.
Here’s a quick list in alphabetical order. See the original article for details:
- The Borowitz Report
- Call The Cops
- Carbolic Smoke Ball
- Cream BMP Daily
- The Daily Currant
- Empire News
- Empire Sports
- Free Wood Post
- Global Associated News (MediaFetcher.com)
- The Lapine
- Lightly Braised Turnip
- National Report
- The Onion
- The Spoof
- Weekly World News
- World News Daily Report
County prosecutors won’t let up on charging a Minnesota mom with child endangerment for giving her sick child medical marijuana. Angela Brown is headed for trial in a case that could send her to prison for two years, even though an already-passed medical marijuana law that goes into effect in 2015 would allow medical use of cannabis oil.
Angela Brown’s son Trey suffers severe pain and spasms from a traumatic brain injury. Brown said she tried a barrage of prescription medications before turning to marijuana, as her son was in so much pain and discomfort that he cried himself to sleep and started punching and cutting himself. Brown, like a number of exasperated parents, traveled to Colorado to purchase some cannabis oil regulated under Colorado law. And she reported a familiar story of parents attempting to treat their child’s pain and seizures: within an hour of giving her son medical marijuana his condition was relieved. “Once it hit his system, Trey said the pressure in his brain was relieved,” she told the Huffington Post. “You could literally see the muscle spasms stopping. He felt amazing.”
But after Brown shared her story with the “wrong person” she was reported to officials, officials seized the cannabis oil from her home and charged her with child endangerment and causing a child to need protection.
In the past few years, we’ve celebrated the 50th anniversaries of many seminal events and landmark achievements of the civil rights movement, from the nonviolent direct action campaign waged in Birmingham, Alabama, to the March on Washington and Freedom Summer. An award-winning play devoted to Lyndon Johnson’s shrewd stewardship of the Civil Rights Act ran on Broadway for most of 2014. And next year, we will commemorate the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which restored to Southern blacks the franchise that had been unconstitutionally denied them during the Jim Crow era. These are all, certainly, accomplishments to celebrate.
But the legacy of the all these landmarks is much more complicated and tinged with—make that drenched in—irony than the conventional story of courage and triumph lets on. It is time to state the obvious. Forget about weak explanations for today’s deep political divisions like “the culture of Washington,” gerrymandering or the rise of cable TV: The civil rights movement, while a victory on many levels, was also the origin of our present morass. It spawned a powerful national “white resistance” countermovement that decisively altered the racial geography of American politics, pushing the national Democratic and Republican parties off center and toward their ideological margins, undermining the centrist policy convergence of the postwar period and setting the parties on the divisive course they remain on today. Many will blame today’s unprecedented political polarization on recent events, such as the rise of the Tea Party or Obama’s election in 2008, but they will be wrong. The seeds of America’s dysfunction were planted 50 years ago. And the ugly politics of race had everything to do with it.
This is an old article from the NYT, from 2008-- it’s very interesting to reread it now, with all the hatred of Obama over the past few years:
Consider, for starters, this paradox of social psychology, a problem for myth busters everywhere: repeating a claim, even if only to refute it, increases its apparent truthfulness. In 2003, the psychologist Ian Skurnik and several of his colleagues asked senior citizens to sit through a computer presentation of a series of health warnings that were randomly identified as either true or false — for example, “Aspirin destroys tooth enamel” (true) or “Corn chips contain twice as much fat as potato chips” (false). A few days later, they quizzed the seniors on what they had learned.
The psychologists expected that seniors would mistakenly remember some false statements as true. What was remarkable, though, was which claims they most often got wrong — the ones they had been exposed to multiple times. In other words, the more that researchers had stressed that a given warning was false, the more likely seniors were to eventually come to believe it was true. (College students in the study did not make the same mistakes.)
I’ve often thought this about internet trolls- if you repeat their claims, even if only to refute them! —it just increases people’s willingness to believe the claim, and there’s some kind of weird feedback mechanism where the troll gets joy out of the repetition of their slander.
The states with the highest number of abortion restrictions also have the fewest policies in place to support women and children’s health and well-being, according to a new report released Wednesday by reproductive rights groups.
The study, conducted by Ibis Reproductive Health and the Center for Reproductive Rights, found that a state’s performance on indicators for women and children’s health and well-being is inversely proportional to the amount of anti-abortion laws in that state. States with mandatory ultrasound laws, mandatory waiting periods and shorter gestational limits on abortion, for example, generally have higher rates of obesity, child and maternal mortality, teen births and women and children without health insurance.
In light of recent news about domestic violence, looking back at a 1964 study that extols its benefits
In the last month, issues of domestic violence in the news have spurred discussion about why women stay in abusive relationships. The Twitter campaign #WhyIStayed allowed victims to share their rationales: some felt too scared to leave, some had grown up with domestic abuse and others always thought that their partners would finally change.
Though the NFL’s handling of domestic violence scandals suggests that our society still has a long way to go when it comes to understanding domestic abuse, we’ve made a lot of progress since 50 years ago when doctors thought “wife beating” was therapeutic. An article in the issue of TIME dated 50 years ago today — Sept. 25, 1964 — highlights a mind-boggling study that concludes couples stay in abusive relationships because their fighting can “balance out each other’s mental quirks.”
READ THE ARTICLE AT TIME: Psychiatry: The Wife Beater & His Wife
Study on Reproductive Rights and Domestic Violence: Being Denied an Abortion ‘Tethered Women to Violent Men’
Demographer Diana Greene Foster studies the effects of unintended pregnancy on women’s lives. Foster and a team of researchers have spent years interviewing women who were able to terminate their pregnancies close to the cut-off date, usually around 20 weeks, to demographically similar women who wanted an abortion but — often because their pregnancies exceeded gestational limits for the procedure — were turned away by clinics. (This is a reality that more women will be forced to confront as state legislatures continue to pass laws designed to shutter clinics and place time, economic and geographical barriers between women and basic medical care.)
The interviews cover topics from physical and mental health to employment and relationships. On Monday, findings from the study on intimate partner violence, pregnancy, parenthood and abortion were published by BMC Medicine, and those findings were striking.
Incidents of intimate partner violence by the man involved in the pregnancy went down among women who were able to have an abortion, but remained consistent for women who carried their pregnancies to term. The reason, according to Foster, was that “being unable to have the abortion tethered women to violent men, while women who have the abortion were more able to escape abusive relationships.”