Rapid drug development yields potential treatment for yellow fever
Yellow fever, a hemorrhagic disease that is common in South America and sub-Saharan Africa, infects about 200,000 people per year and causes an estimated 30,000 deaths.
While there is a vaccine for yellow fever, it can't be given to some people because of the risk of side effects, and there are no approved treatments for the disease.
An international team of researchers, led by MIT Professor Ram Sasisekharan, has now developed a potential treatment for yellow fever.
Their drug, an engineered monoclonal antibody that targets the virus, has shown success in early-stage clinical trials in Singapore.
This class of antibodies holds promise for treating a variety of infectious diseases, but it usually takes several years to develop and test them. The MIT-led researchers demonstrated that they could design, produce, and begin clinical trials of their antibody drug within seven months.
Their approach, which condenses the timeline by performing many of the steps necessary for drug development in parallel, could also be applied to developing new treatments for Covid-19, says Sasisekharan, the Alfred H. Caspary Professor of Biological Engineering and Health Sciences and Technology.
He adds that a potential Covid-19 antibody treatment, developed using this approach in a process that took just four months, has shown no adverse events in healthy volunteers in phase I clinical trials, and phase 3 trials are expected to start in early August in Singapore.
Traditional drug development processes are very linear, and they take many years. If you're going to get something to humans fast, you can't do it linearly, because then the best-case scenario for testing in humans is a year to 18 months. If you need to develop a drug in six months or less, then a lot of these things need to happen in parallel."
Ram Sasisekharan, Professor, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Jenny Low, a senior consultant in infectious diseases at Singapore General Hospital, is the lead author of the study, which appears today in the New England Journal of Medicine. Researchers from the Singapore-MIT Alliance for Research and Technology (SMART), Duke-National University of Singapore Medical School, and the biotechnology company Tysana Pte also contributed to the study.
Several types of monoclonal antibodies have been approved to treat a variety of cancers. These engineered antibodies help to stimulate a patient's immune system to attack tumors by binding to proteins found on cancerous cells.
Many researchers are also working on monoclonal antibodies to treat infectious diseases. In recent years, scientists have developed an experimental cocktail of three monoclonal antibodies that target the Ebola virus, which has shown some success in clinical trials in the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Sasisekharan began working on a "rapid response" to emerging infectious diseases after the Zika outbreak that started in 2015. Singapore, which experienced a small outbreak of the Zika virus in 2016, is home to the SMART antimicrobial resistance research group, where Sasisekharan is a principal investigator.
The Sasisekharan lab antibody design process uses computational methods to target functionally important, and evolutionarily stable, regions on the virus. Building blocks from a database of all known antibody elements are selected based on several criteria, including their functional importance, to build candidate antibodies to evaluate.
Advanced nanomaterial-based biosensing platform detects COVID-19 antibodies within seconds
Study: DOT1L enzyme is essential for humoral immune responses
Testing these candidates provides valuable feedback, and the design loop continues until an optimized antibody that fully neutralizes the target virus is identified.
The group also explored new approaches to compress the timeline by performing many of the necessary steps in parallel, using analytical techniques to address regulatory risks associated with drug safety, manufacturing, and clinical study design.
Using this approach, the researchers developed a candidate Zika treatment within nine months. They performed phase 1a clinical trials to test for safety in March 2018, but by the time they were ready to test the drug's effectiveness in patients, the outbreak had ended. However, the team hopes to eventually test it in areas where the disease is still present.
Sasisekharan and his colleagues then decided to see if they could apply the same approach to developing a potential treatment for yellow fever.
Yellow fever, a mosquito-borne disease, tends to appear seasonally in tropical and subtropical regions of South America and Africa. A particularly severe outbreak began in January 2018 in Brazil and lasted for several months.
The MIT/SMART team began working on developing a yellow fever antibody treatment in March 2018, in hopes of having it ready to counter an outbreak so that it could be made available for potential patients in late 2018 or early 2019, when another outbreak was expected.
They identified promising antibody candidates based on their ability to bind to the viral envelope and neutralize the virus that causes yellow fever.
The researchers narrowed their candidates down to one antibody, which they called TY014. They then developed production methods to create small, uniform batches that they could use to perform necessary testing phases in parallel.
These tests include studying the drugs' effectiveness in human cells, determining the most effective dosages, testing for potential toxicity, and analyzing how the drug behaves in animal models. As soon as they had results indicating that the treatment would be safe, they began clinical trials in December 2018.
"The mindset in the industry is that it's like a relay race. You don't start the next lap until you finish the previous lap," Sasisekharan says. "In our case, we start each runner as soon as we can."
TY014 was clinically tested in parallel to address safety through dose escalation in healthy human volunteers. Once an appropriate dose was deemed safe, the researchers began a phase 1b trial, in which they measured the antibody's ability to clear the virus.
Even though the 1b trial had begun, the 1a trial continued until a maximum safe dose in humans was identified.
Because there is a vaccine available for yellow fever, the researchers could perform a type of clinical trial known as a challenge test.
They first vaccinated volunteers, then 24 hours later, they gave them either the experimental antibody drug or a placebo. Two days after that, they measured whether the drug cleared the weakened viruses that make up the vaccine.
The researchers found that following treatment, the virus was undetectable in blood samples from people who received the antibodies.
The treatment also reduced inflammation following vaccination, compared to people who received the vaccine but not the antibody treatment. The phase 1b trial was completed in July 2019, and the researchers now hope to perform phase 2 clinical trials in patients infected with the disease.
Posted in: Drug Discovery & Pharmaceuticals | Disease/Infection News
Tags: Antibodies, Antibody, Antimicrobial Resistance, Biotechnology, Blood, Clinical Trial, Drugs, Ebola Virus, Fever, Hospital, Immune System, Infectious Diseases, Inflammation, Manufacturing, Medical School, Medicine, Monoclonal Antibody, Mosquito, Placebo, Research, Vaccine, Virus, Yellow Fever, Zika Virus
Researchers develop novel nanobodies against SARS coronavirus-2
Scientists use genomics to track the outbreak of Yellow fever virus in São Paulo
Kobe University and Sysmex conduct joint research on new blood test for identifying COVID-19
Novel treatments could cut the death rate from dengue, Zika, West Nile viruses
Proteogenomic study may lead to more effective treatments for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma
Presence of microbes in the lung can modulate lung cancer pathogenesis
Researchers discover new 'hidden' gene in SARS-CoV-2
Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 spike protein may improve monoclonal antibody resistance
Pairs of antibodies may be more effective at preventing and treating COVID-19


Facebook wants to prevent the adpocalypse... with ads
By Adrian Potoroaca	 on December 17, 2020, 14:55 12 comments
In brief: Earlier this month, Facebook was sued by the FTC along with 48 state attorneys-general over several antitrust issues. In response, the social giant thought Apple should be getting more of that attention for providing users with more information and the ability to opt out of data collection in apps like Facebook and Instagram, which have rather long lists of things they track.
Facebook is the most vocal critic for the new App Tracking Transparency feature that Apple introduced in iOS 14.3. The feature was overdue, as privacy advocates pressed Apple to implement it as soon as possible to give users a better look at ways apps track their personal information.
Facebook faces a projected a revenue drop of around 40 percent, which is partly the reason why the company has gone on a crusade against Apple as of late. On Wednesday, the social giant started a campaign consisting of full-page newspaper ads in publications like the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Post, seeking to enlist more public support for the idea that small businesses would be affected by Apple's limiting of data gathering and targeted ads.
Facebook isn't entirely wrong when they say that targeted ads are more likely to get the kind of engagement that generates revenue for small businesses, who either can't or choose not to charge a fee for the services they provide. However, Apple has already fired back at Facebook with at statement that clarifies the former's stance on the way advertising should be served to its customers.
Specifically, Apple believes it's doing its users a service by allowing them to choose if they want to be tracked, when, and by whom, depending on personal preference. In other words, Apple wants companies like Facebook to adhere to the same privacy and transparency standards that (allegedly) govern Apple apps and services.
Facebook is most likely hoping for one of two outcomes. Either Apple caves in to public pressure to relax its new App Store policy, or regulators could step in to force Apple's hand for supposedly using privacy as an excuse to abuse its dominant position. The latter seems more likely, since Facebook seems intent on proving that Apple is just as guilty of silent data collection through something called Identifier for Advertisers (IDFA) on iOS.
In the EU, Apple is already under fire for its use of IDFA, but an underfunded Irish Data Protection Commission has yet to move forward with a formal investigation.
Facebook has equally welcomed the EU's new Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, which introduce new gatekeeping rules that are supposed to prevent platform owners from abusing their power to harm developers and small businesses.
As for Facebook's newspaper ads, they fired up a new one today, titled "Apple vs. the free internet," in which it's trying to convince readers the Cupertino giant is secretly trying to move all apps and services to a paid model, where it can extract a fee from subscriptions and in-app purchases.
In the ad, Facebook also claims that small businesses can expect to see 60 percent less sales on average, if they keep their advertising budget the same. According to a Facebook-commissioned study conducted by Deloitte, targeted ads on social media have seen the biggest positive net change amid the pandemic, but non-targeted ads have also seen double digit growth, as did search engine ads and display ads shown on websites across multiple categories.
Facebook isn't fighting Apple using only newspaper ads, either. Earlier, the social giant promised to assist Epic in its ongoing legal battle against Apple over App Store rules. If anything, Epic just found a new friend in its quest to paint Apple as the evil gatekeeper of the App Store, and Facebook just found a way to disguise its self-interest as fighting for the "free internet" and "small businesses."


Donnie Summerlin, University of Georgia Libraries,
The Columbus Enquirer and the Columbus Ledger
Harris Ownership and Consolidation
The Columbus Ledger-Enquirer is the fourth-oldest newspaper in the state, behind the Augusta Chronicle, the Milledgeville Union-Recorder, and the Macon Telegraph, and has covered news for the people of Columbus, southwest Georgia, and east Alabama since 1828. The paper, which is owned by the McClatchy Company, has won two Pulitzer Prizes for public service and has a daily circulation of more than 25,000, making it one of the largest newspapers in Georgia.
Mirabeau B. Lamar established the Columbus Enquirer as a four-page weekly newspaper in 1828, the same year the General Assembly incorporated the city of Columbus. The paper was politically aligned with the Jeffersonian Democrats and states’ rights advocates. After two unsuccessful runs for Congress and the death of his wife and brother, Lamar sold the paper in 1835 and moved to Texas. He later fought in the Texas Revolution and was eventually elected the first vice president and the second president of the Republic of Texas.
Columbus Enquirer
The Enquirer experienced several changes in ownership in the decades that followed. In the 1840s, the paper was aligned with the Whig Party and supported its national candidates. After the collapse of the party, the editors avoided aligning with another political organization but maintained strong support for compromise with the North during the antebellum period. In 1858 the Columbus Enquirer began daily circulation for the first time to maintain readers in response to competition from the newly established Daily Sun. When Georgia seceded from the Union in 1861, the Enquirer supported the decision, thus falling in line with most of the other large newspapers in the state. The Columbus Enquirer managed to survive shortages inflicted by the Civil War (1861-65) and absorbed the Daily Sun in 1874 to become the Enquirer-Sun.Publisher E. T. Byington and his wife, Elia Goode Byington, established the Columbus Ledger as a new
Julian Harris
challenger to the Enquirer in 1886. Unlike its competitor, the Ledger was released as an afternoon paper and almost exclusively hired women in its office. Alabama native Rinaldo William Page purchased the Ledger in 1892. Page successfully published the paper through the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, during which time it was a strong advocate for Democratic Party policies. The Ledger would remain under Page family ownership for more than eighty years.
In 1920 Julian LaRose Harris (son of celebrated writer Joel Chandler Harris) purchased the Columbus Enquirer-Sun with his wife, Julia Collier Harris, and partner Thomas W. Loyless. Under their control, the newspaper became a courageous voice for social advancement and racial justice. The Harrises personally traveled to Tennessee in 1925 to cover the Scopes "monkey" Trial and wrote critically of those who refused to teach evolution in schools. They also investigated the activities of the Ku Klux Klan and bravely editorialized against the group’s views and tactics. Moreover, the Enquirer-Sun opposed lynching practices in Georgia and supported increased educational opportunity for African Americans. The work of Julian and Julia Harris earned the paper the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 1926. It was the second southern newspaper to win the award.
Ledger-Enquirer Building
Despite the national recognition, the Harrises were constant victims of threats and vandalism and faced increasing debt that forced them to sell the Enquirer-Sun in 1929. The R. W. Page Corporation, publisher of the Columbus Ledger, purchased the paper the following year. Despite being under sole ownership, the two publications continued individual circulation, with the Enquirer serving as the city’s morning edition and the Ledger as the afternoon edition. The two titles published a combined Sunday Ledger-Enquirer on the weekends.
The papers continued their commitment to quality reporting in the years that followed. In 1955 the Columbus Ledger and Sunday Ledger-Enquirer won its second Pulitzer Prize for public service for its coverage of municipal corruption and organized crime in nearby Phenix City, Alabama. It is the only Georgia newspaper to win that particular award twice. Newspaper publisher Knight Newspapers purchased the papers in 1973 and merged with Ridder Publications the following year to form Knight Ridder. Under their ownership, the Ledger and Enquirer would finally merge into a single daily edition in 1988, forming the Columbus Ledger-Enquirer. In 2006 the McClatchy Company purchased Knight Ridder and its holdings, including the Ledger-Enquirer. The publication continues to deliver news to the citizens of Columbus and the greater southwest Georgia and east Alabama area.
Julian and Julia Collier Harris (1874-1963; 1875-1967)
Pulitzer Prizes of Georgia
More in Newspapers
Nineteenth-Century Georgia Newspapers
Augusta Chronicle
Media Gallery: Columbus Ledger-Enquirer
Louis Turner Griffith and John Erwin Talmadge, Georgia Journalism, 1736-1950 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1951).
William F. Mugleston, "Julian Harris, the Georgia Press, and the Ku Klux Klan," Georgia Historical Quarterly 59 (fall 1975): 284-95.
Summerlin, Donnie. "Columbus Ledger-Enquirer." New Georgia Encyclopedia. 08 March 2018. Web. 15 January 2021.
Digital Library of Georgia: Georgia Historic Newspapers, West
Norma Brumback
Ted Turner (b. 1938)
Gladene Tucker
W. F. Denny (1874-1905)
Dorothy Berge
Will Edward Hipps
J. Richardson Jones (ca. 1901-1948)
Kerry Moore
Roger McLain
Museum of Contemporary Art of Georgia
Georgia Trend
Thomas Addison Richards (1820-1900)
Ted Kallman
Trans-Oconee Republic
Bert Lance (1931-2013)


How Democracy Dies by 'A Thousand Cuts'
Maria Ressa has been arrested by Rodrigo Duterte's government in the Philippines twice. Image: Frontline
Frontline: A Thousand Cuts premieres Friday, January 8 at 9:00 pm on WTTW and online or via the PBS Video App
“What we’re seeing is death by a thousand cuts of our democracy.” It sounds like something an American pundit might say about the United States right now, but it is spoken by the journalist Maria Ressa about the Philippines in the documentary A Thousand Cuts, presented on PBS by Frontline.
Ressa is a co-founder of the Manila-based news site Rappler and a frequent critic of the populist President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte. For her and Rappler’s dogged pursuit of the truth in a country awash with disinformation and press intimidation, she was named Time magazine’s Person of the Year in 2018—and has been arrested twice by Duterte’s government, as well as hit with other cases in court.
For A Thousand Cuts filmmaker Ramona S. Diaz, who grew up in the Philippines under the dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos, such attacks on the press are “heartbreaking.”
“I was born and raised in the Philippines under martial law,” she says. About the beginning of Duterte’s reign in 2016, she says, “I felt like we were just going back to a dark time and regressing, and I just wondered, ‘What is going on in that country?’”
Diaz was in the Philippines in 1987, the year after the People Power revolution ousted Marcos and led to the creation of a democratic Constitution. “The freedom and the way that people could now express themselves after years of Marcos was incredible,” she says. The heady atmosphere spurred an interest in documentary filmmaking, leading to her first film, Spirits Rising, which examined women’s role in the revolution. She has continued to make documentaries about the Philippines ever since, including one about Marcos’s larger-than-life wife Imelda.
“In my entire career, I have always made films about the Philippines,” she says. “I always go back to the motherland.”
Searching for another subject after making a film called Motherland, about the world’s busiest maternity ward, Diaz returned to the Philippines at the end of 2017 intending to focus on Duterte’s violent war on drugs. Thousands of people have been killed in the drug war, which was enacted in part by former police chief Ronald dela Rosa, known as Bato—one of several subjects Diaz follows in A Thousand Cuts as they run for the Senate in the 2019 midterm elections.
“I wanted to talk to Duterte’s allies, people who are part of his inner circle,” Diaz says of Bato and another Senate candidate, the blogger and entertainer Mocha Uson. Both fascinated her as characters, but she also felt that they provided an important backdrop, “just to give context to what Maria was really up against.”
While Bato is a symbol of the drug war, Uson in a sense represents what Ressa and Diaz both believe is another important aspect of Duterte’s popularity: social media and disinformation. Rappler has tracked how pro-Duterte posts and disinformation have influenced millions of people on social media, in part via stalwart supporters with large followers like Uson.
“I think his popularity is a mixture of disinformation and also a bit of the strongman appeal,” Diaz says. Duterte has admitted to killing people, boasts about his virility, uses blunt language, and has made rape jokes. “The strongman will avenge all the ills that are before you,” explains Diaz about Duterte’s message. “There was no one else in the landscape, so people forgave him his language.
“He was using very populist rhetoric, identifying a common enemy: the elite and the media, journalists. Not only would he solve your problems, it’s more like revenge, for the failures of the People Power revolution. The promises of the revolution never came to fruition, the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.”
Watching the Philippines slide away from democracy—Duterte allies control the legislature, courts are stacked with his appointees, and freedom of the press is vanishing—has made Diaz realize “how fragile democracy is. Especially in the global south, but evidently in this country [the United States] too,” she says. “But this country can take more blows than somewhere like the Philippines.
“It takes so long to build institutions and trust, trust in government, trust in media, after so long of everyone being repressed. Democracy is messy. You really have to be vigilant, because you can take your eyes off the ball, and then so quickly democratic institutions crumble.”
'Frontline' on America's Crisis of Democracy
A Year in Review with 'Frontline'
Frontline's Michael Kirk on 'The Choice 2020'
"I've Never Covered a More Important Story": Journalism During COVID-19
'For Sama' from 'Frontline' Nominated for An Oscar
'America's Great Divide' and the 2020 Election


How Much Did Massachusetts Make From Weed Sales Last Year?
The state brought in over $400 million in 2019.
by Anna Lucia Krupp– January 8, 2020
iStock / NeoPhoto
It’s been over a year now since Massachusetts legalized recreational cannabis and weed sales in the Bay State are booming. We’ve officially rung in the new year and the final numbers are rolling in, with the thirty-three cannabis dispensaries open across the state reporting gross sales totaling over $420M in 2019 alone.
This is according to data released in a report made by the Massachusetts Cannabis Control Commission in December. Apparently, those numbers didn’t even include cannabis sales from the week of Christmas; an updated report is expected from the commission later this month.
Back in November, Cannabis Control Commission Chairman, Steven Hoffman, gave an interview to the online news source Mass Live, saying, “I feel proud of what we’ve accomplished and I’m pleased with how the rollout has gone to date but we are in the early stages and have a ton more work to do. I have no expectation there will be a retail store on every corner, but we have a lot more geographic expansion to do. That’s the biggest part of our job.
Going on, added Hoffman, “I’m not criticizing any city or town. Everyone is trying to do the right thing…[but] we can’t process applications without an agreement and that’s a factor on the pace of rollout. I think we’re missing an opportunity to substantially improve the lives of patients around the state. We need to figure out how to engage the medical community in this.”
As in many of the states that have legalized marijuana for recreational use in recent years, the state of Massachusetts has implemented a hefty tax rate of between 17% and 20% on all recreational cannabis sales. To break it down, this includes a combination of sales tax (6.25%), excise tax (10.75%) and an optional local tax (up to 3%).
Based on a rough calculation using those numbers, Massachusetts should have brought in at least $70M in tax revenue, money which has already been earmarked for multiple social justice efforts aimed at low-income communities and communities of color across the state, including funding going to public education, housing, and addiction services.
Just last month, Massachusetts Revenue Commissioner, Christopher Harding, said that the amount of tax revenue gathered from the sales of recreational cannabis this year was “fairly close to” what legislators were expecting.
At the state’s recent annual consensus revenue hearing, Harding told lawmakers of the Joint Ways and Means Committee to expect more of the same, saying, “We expect that revenues will continue to accelerate as retail outlets are licensed and open for business. However, from a revenue perspective, the legal marijuana market has not yet fully developed, and uncertainty remains around the rate at which the market will grow and how prices will change over time.”
Visiting Massachusetts soon? Find out where to legally purchase recreational cannabis here. Also be sure sure to become familiar with the state’s marijuana laws, including how much cannabis each individual is allowed to possess (either on your person or in your home).
How Much Did Massachusetts Make From Weed Sales Last Year? was last modified: January 8th, 2020 by Anna Lucia Krupp


Government, Parliament and employers must come together to end discrimination
In this guest blog, solicitor Kiran Daurka says that recent employment rights reforms could adversely impact on people with mental health problems.
As an employment lawyer who acts on behalf of individuals who have been subjected to unlawful discrimination, I regularly encounter the stigma that continues to surround mental health conditions. A recent study from anti-mental health stigma campaign Time to Change found that 9 in 10 young people with a mental health diagnosis receive negative reactions because of it. While racism, sexism and homophobia are no longer publicly acceptable, this study suggests that discrimination on the grounds of mental health remains mainstream.
However, there is reason for optimism from a legal perspective; a Private Member’s Bill that removes outdated obstacles for individuals who have been detained under the Mental Health Act is close to becoming law and has support from all three main parties. It is unacceptable that the law still prohibits people from carrying out jury service, being appointed as a statutory company director, serving as a school governor or being elected as an MP because they have been detained under the Mental Health Act at some point in their lives.
Gavin Barwell’s bill, which has reached the committee stage in the House of Commons, will help to reintegrate the most excluded individuals into society. In doing it so will mark an important step in challenging the stigma and untruths surrounding mental health conditions.
Another vital area in the fight against discrimination is employment. Many employees are reluctant to disclose a mental health condition to an employer, fearing action might be taken against them. But without disclosure of a mental health condition, employees are not necessarily protected by equality legislation; employers can argue that without knowledge of the condition they could not have been expected to make reasonable adjustments or provide adequate support. I have advised in numerous cases where employers have made rash or unjustifiable decisions without a proper understanding of the condition or the support that is available to help the individual.
Despite gradual progress in reforming mental health legislation, the Government’s recent reforms of employment rights will directly impact upon employees with mental health conditions. The Government has recently changed the law so that employees must have been employed for at least two years in order to claim for unfair dismissal. Given that people with mental health conditions are one of the least employed groups – recent figures suggest that only 27% of working age adults in England with a mental health condition are in employment – those trying to enter the workforce are particularly vulnerable, with little protection against unfair dismissal where discrimination cannot be proven.
Further to this, there are proposals to introduce fees to employment tribunals from next year, which will make it harder and more expensive to access justice. In particular, vulnerable groups, such as those with mental health conditions, who are more likely to face discrimination at work – and possibly dismissal – will find it increasingly difficult to bring claims if required to pay a fee before a claim can be heard.
This is a clear erosion of hard-fought employment rights, and should be a concern for everyone. But it is a particular issue for groups who are already marginalised and find it difficult to obtain and maintain employment.
Employers should note that 1 in 4 people will experience some sort of mental health issue during their lives, so it is in their interest to fight against discrimination. Education and discussion around mental health conditions can only help to alleviate the discomfort that this topic still brings. Further, if the Government wants to get people who can work back into employment it needs to ensure that there is adequate protection in place to keep them there.
Kiran Daurka is a solicitor at the London office of Slater & Gordon. She advises on discrimination issues, and has particular expertise in disability discrimination and mental health issues in the workplace. She has acted for numerous clients with mental health conditions, helping them to bring claims to employment tribunals and appeals tribunals.


Ruth Bader Ginsburg admits Roe v. Wade was bad for America
Published by Stephen Kokx at May 15, 2013
Given the Kermit Gosnell case you’d think pro-choice advocates would avoid talking about abortion. Apparently that course of action never crossed the mind of liberal Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. On Saturday, May 11th, the 80-year-old justice spoke candidly about abortion at the University of Chicago Law School.
During her visit Ginsburg told attendees that she thinks Roe v. Wade was a disappointing decision. Not because it resulted in more than 55 million unborn children being denied their right to life, but because the Court went “too far, too fast” in liberalizing abortion laws.
The Court’s sweeping decision, Ginsburg argued – and has argued in the past – gave “opponents of access to abortion a target to aim at relentlessly.” The Court should have exercised judicial restraint and “let that change develop in the political process” at the state level.
Ginsburg went on to express her resentment toward the Court for halting what she thinks the feminist movement would have accomplished organically. When those “unelected old men” ruled in favor of Roe, “it seemed to have stopped the momentum that was on the side of change.” The Court’s majority opinion focused too much on privacy rights and not enough on advancing women’s rights. It was not “woman-centered. It was physician-centered,” she grumbled.
Although I disagree with Ginsburg’s claim that advocates of abortion would have won the day had it remained a state issue, I agree that Roe v. Wade was politically advantageous for the pro-life movement. Obviously it would have been better had Roe been struck down, but it’s undeniable that it galvanized millions of Americans into taking a stand against abortion.
What’s also interesting to note here is that Ginsburg’s desire to let states decide these sorts of issues comes just two months after the Supreme Court heard two cases regarding the rights of homosexual couples: the Defense of Marriage Act and California’s Proposition 8. Whether or not Ginsburg is hinting at how she plans to rule on those cases remains unknown. We’ll have to wait until June to hear the Court’s opinion. At that point we’ll know just how “far” and how “fast” the Court decided to go when it comes to marriage. Until then, keep fighting for the rights of the unborn. Lord knows we need strong pro-life leaders now more than ever.


Honorable Alphonso Jackson
Former U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development;
Vice Chairman and Managing Director, Global Regulatory Policy and Strategy JPMorgan Chase
Former United States Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Alphonso Jackson has joined First Data, the global leader in payment technology and services solutions, as a Senior Advisor. In this role, Secretary Jackson’s primary objectives will be to strengthen First Data’s government relations and public policy initiatives, and advance the company’s government business opportunities.
“We are honored to have Secretary Jackson as part of the First Data team,” said Himanshu Patel, Executive Vice President, Strategy, Planning & Business Development at First Data. “With a lifetime of engagement on national issues, from his participation in the Selma-to-Montgomery March in 1965 to his service in the cabinet, Secretary Jackson brings a breadth of leadership skills and relationships to our company.”
Prior to joining First Data, Secretary Jackson was Vice Chairman of Mortgage Banking with JPMorgan Chase. Before that, he served as the Director of the Center for Public Policy and Leadership and as the Distinguished University Professor at Hampton University.
Nominated by President George W. Bush and unanimously confirmed by the U.S. Senate, Secretary Jackson served as HUD Secretary from 2004 to 2008. His work at the HUD began in June 2001, when he was appointed Deputy Secretary. In that role he managed the daily operations of the $32 billion agency. His service at the federal level grew from his seven years as president and CEO of the Housing Authority of the City of Dallas, from 1989 to 1996, where he was credited with turning around the troubled municipal agency, making it one of the best-managed large city housing agencies.
Immediately preceding his move to Washington in 2001, Secretary Jackson was the President of American Electric Power-TEXAS, a $13 billion utility company in Austin, Texas. He joined Central Southwest Power, which later became American Electric Power, in 1996.
Secretary Jackson was also the director of the Department of Public and Assisted Housing in Washington, D.C., and served as Chairperson for the District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency Board. He was the Director of Public Safety for the City of St. Louis, Missouri, and served as the Executive Director for the St. Louis Housing Authority. He was also Director of Consultant Services for the accounting firm of Laventhol and Horwath in St. Louis and was a Special Assistant to the Chancellor and Assistant Professor at the University of Missouri.
Secretary Jackson received a bachelor’s degree in political science and a master’s degree in education administration from Truman State University. He also earned a law degree from Washington University School of Law.
About First Data
First Data is a global technology leader in the financial services industry. With 24,000 employee-owners and operations in 35 countries, the company provides secure and innovative payment technology and services to more than six million merchants and financial institutions around the world, from small businesses to the world’s largest corporations. Today, businesses in nearly 70 countries trust First Data to secure and process more than 2,000 financial transactions per second, totaling $1.8 trillion a year. First Data’s unparalleled infrastructure and partnerships go “beyond the transaction” with next-generation point-of-sale technology fueled by powerful analytics to detect fraud, gain insights into consumer spending, and strengthen customer loyalty. All day, every day, First Data helps its clients thrive in the evolving world of commerce.


In Coronavirus, China Weighs Benefits of Buffalo Horn and Other Remedies
February 5, 2020 - by mindfullmess
As it races to treat patients infected with the new coronavirus, the Chinese government is seeing potential in a cocktail of antiviral drugs. It is also recommending the Peaceful Palace Bovine Pill, a traditional Chinese medicine made with the gallstone of cattle, buffalo horn, jasmine and pearl.
There is no known cure for the coronavirus that has sickened 24,324 people and killed 490 in China. The country’s National Health Commission says doctors should try treating patients mainly with a combination of Western drugs used to treat HIV and fight viruses, depending on the severity of illness.
But the government is also looking at ways to supplement the treatment with remedies that are integral to its national identity — traditional Chinese medicine. It has its supporters.
“I think it is the correct approach,” said Cheng Yung-chi, a professor of pharmacology at Yale University School of Medicine. “The evidence is going to come and we have to give it the benefit of the doubt.”
There is no clinical proof that the roots of various plants, licorice, and the Peaceful Palace Bovine Pill can help combat the deadly disease. Practitioners say the regimen could help ease symptoms such as swelling in the lungs, with fewer side effects. Critics say the use of such concoctions could raise concerns about patient safety.
The use of these ancient Chinese remedies dovetails with a push by Xi Jinping, China’s top leader, to harness them as a source of national pride. He has said that officials should place as much importance on traditional Chinese medicines as they do on Western medicines. His government has called for the remedies to be promoted in its “Belt and Road” trade route, China’s push to build ports, rail lines and other infrastructure around the world.
In turning to traditional medicine, China is relying on past experience. During the severe acute respiratory syndrome, or SARS, outbreak in 2002 and 2003, doctors found that steroids prescribed to reduce inflammation had harmful side effects such as bone destruction. Chinese medicine, they said, would mitigate some of these adverse reactions.
In its treatment plan for the coronavirus released on Wednesday, the National Health Commission recommended traditional Chinese medicine remedies that could be used with antiretroviral H.I.V. drugs like Lopinavir and Ritonavir. The national health department suggested trying the Peaceful Palace Bovine Pill for severe symptoms such as wheezing and respiratory distress.
Some hospitals are already using a combination of Western and Chinese medicines. In recent weeks, Beijing’s health department reported that two patients who were discharged had been treated with traditional Chinese medicines together with other unspecified drugs. And in Guangzhou, a major city in the south, health officials said 50 patients reported having no more fever and half of them said their coughs went away after using traditional Chinese medicines and other drugs.
Doctors are conducting clinical trials to test the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine in Wuhan, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak, said Dr. Cheng, the expert at Yale, who is also chairman of the Consortium for the Globalization of Chinese Medicine, a group of academics in the field.
Jiang Xianfeng, a traditional Chinese medicine practitioner at United Family Health, a top hospital for the affluent in Beijing, said these medicines are safe, effective and easy to get.
“Western medicine does not have better answers to this virus,” Mr. Jiang said. “The Chinese people have experienced these sort of plagues many times in our thousands of years of history. If traditional Chinese medicine was not effective, the Chinese people would already be destroyed.”
After the SARS outbreak, the World Health Organization studied the use of traditional Chinese medicine during that period and determined that they were safe and showed some potential in relieving symptoms such as fatigue and shortness of breath. Researchers from the United States and Taiwan found that certain herbs could suppress the virus if prescribed at specific concentration levels, while other studies said their findings were inconclusive.
That scientific uncertainty is not stopping the Chinese government. Since the second version of its treatment plan, the health commission has added more traditional Chinese medicines to the mix. The authorities in Wuhan say coronavirus patients with light or moderate symptoms should be treated with traditional Chinese medicine, the state-run Beijing News reported.
Zhu Mao, a representative of a traditional Chinese medicine manufacturer in Hubei, said he was producing more than 20,000 prescriptions per day at the request of the government. On Jan. 25, the State Administration of Traditional Chinese medicine dispatched 25 teams of Chinese healers to Wuhan.
Traditional Chinese medicine teaches that disease arises from imbalances in the body and that some people have “hot” constitutions, therefore making them vulnerable to fevers and inflammations. When someone gets a fever or a respiratory illness, it is not uncommon to have Chinese people say: “You are on fire.”
Practitioners have determined that the coronavirus is a “hot” disease, and therefore, medicines should be prescribed to “clear the heat.”
It is unclear how the science works behind these medicines. Compounding the problem: There is no standardization for these herbs and regulation is poor.
Traditional Chinese medicine has also been linked to the consumption of exotic wild meats, though it is unclear whether the eating of the meats is really based on the practice. But some people, particularly in the south, believe that the way to achieving a balanced body is through eating certain meats. Wildlife markets such as the Huanan Seafood Market in Wuhan, the site that is believed to be the origin of the coronavirus, proliferated because of the demand for such meats.
Laurie Garrett, a member of the World Economic Forum’s global health security advisory board who covered the SARS outbreak in China, said that using traditional Chinese medicine in the new coronavirus outbreak could be risky because the approach is not rigorously backed by research.
“There’s no such thing as dosing,” she said. “It’s like being a chef in a kitchen.”
The prestigious science journal Nature pointed out that dozens of women who had taken Chinese herbs as part of a weight-loss program ended up with kidney failure in the 1990s. Proponents of traditional Chinese medicine say the herbs were misused. Still, Nature argued in a 2017 editorial: “Hundreds of years of use in clinics that don’t standardize or analyze the clinical data are no match for blinded, controlled studies.”
Doctors in neighboring Hong Kong, a semiautonomous region of China, are not convinced that traditional Chinese medicines can help. “I am not trying to devalue their treatment, but this is not something we practice,” said Arisina Ma, the president of the Hong Kong Public Doctors Association.
In China, people have searched anxiously for ways to protect themselves. In many Chinese cities, some stood in line for hours to buy “Shuanghuanglian” — a herbal concoction that mixes flowers such as honeysuckle and forsythia, among other ingredients — after two government-backed research institutes published a study that said it was effective in preventing the coronavirus.
Chen Xi, an assistant professor of health policy and economics at the Yale School of Public Health, urged the Chinese news media to be more careful in its reporting, saying that the potential for traditional Chinese medicine to inhibit a virus is not equivalent to a form of prevention or treatment.
“If incidents like Shuanghuanglian happen again and again, it will lose the public trust, cause more panic, and go against the authorities’ advice to avoid crowd gathering,” Mr. Chen wrote.
Qin Xi, a manager of a pharmacy in Beijing, said sales of some of his traditional Chinese medicines, including “Shuanghuanglian,” have been off the charts. “As for whether it works, who knows?” he said.
Elsie Chen, Yiwei Wang and Zoe Mou contributed research from Beijing. Tiffany May contributed reporting from Hong Kong.
Screening clients for respiratory infection symptoms at entry to homeless shelters
Coronavirus: Outbreak at ‘decisive point’ as WHO urges action
A Single Gesture Behind Trump Fuels an Online Conspiracy Theory
Previous Article Trapped on coronavirus-ravaged cruise ship, Diamond Princess passengers struggle to keep spirits up
Next Article Coronavirus: Life in quarantine on a cruise ship


May 29, 2019 / 5 comments / Category: Uncategorized
I was fortunate to have a critique of my EU Elections article from Robin Bunce, a Cambridge politics professor who is far cleverer than me. (However, I maintain that I sourced better GIFs.) You can read the public exchange on Facebook here if you like.
After some quibbles about my maths, Robin made three substantial points about Labour’s stance on Brexit which make sense to me, but still need a push back. They were:
“Labour’s strategic ambiguity has stopped Brexit.” (At least for now, because otherwise enough Labour MPs would have put Withdrawal Agreement (WA, or May’s deal) across the line.)
“In a situation where Remain is not strong enough to win a full-on battle, the best solution is a guerilla struggle.” (Stretch it out, avoid losing, keep Remain “in the game” essentially.)
“As soon as the Tories elect a new leader and adopt a harder Brexit stance, Labour can endorse a second referendum as a last resort.” (It can be said that Labour tried everything else first.)
While that sounds kind of sensible to me, it also sounds all kinds of horrific, for reasons I’ll explain in my reply below.
But Robin’s most powerful point, I thought, was that “Remain have won all of the arguments* but lost the POLITICAL battle,” and that Labour needs a political strategy. (* by “arguments” I think Robin meant economic analyses rather than elections, but he could correct me on this.)
In any case, I thought I should post my reply here rather than just leaving it in a Facebook comment.
The breakfast food references are my way of trying to make sense of these polling numbers, by the way. Thousands of people were asked to rank their preferred Brexit options. “Remain” was the most polarising, in a Marmite-like “love it or hate it” way. “No Deal” had quite a few fans but most people were not keen, which I’ve likened to black pudding. The middle options were more palatable to most, but were more for settling than loving – “Soft Brexit” looks to me like the cornflakes most people will happily put up with (it’s the majority’s second choice), but the “WA (Withdrawal Agreement)”, or “May’s Deal”, is a lot less popular, perceived more like a bowl of cold porridge.
I like analogies which help me to think laterally and potentially break out new solutions to tricky problems by seeing if there’s something we can observe from a different angle. Also, I like food.
What stands out for me in your excellent analysis is the idea of perhaps winning an (economic?) argument but losing the political battle. I’ll stick with my breakfast analogy for a bit, but put it in a domestic situation...
Let’s say Dad wants black pudding but Mum says it’s too expensive and gross. Mum wants Marmite, which is better economically, but Dad says it’s yeasty shite which no one in their right mind could like, and now Mum is crying.
There’s an economic argument here, but the kids won’t remember it. They will remember how Mum and Dad started to make them feel when they kept shouting “bollocks*” at each other and nobody had any breakfast, even that crappy dust in a jar which no one likes or remembers why it ended up in the kitchen in the first place.
(*If you’re wondering why the bad language is necessary, by the way, I didn’t start it. This is the state we’re in. This is a REAL photo, from a REAL political campaign from a party generally known for its sensible, moderate views, led by your kindly uncle. How did we get here?)
The actual Liberal Democrat manifesto for the 2019 European Elections
Fact is, the significance of broken politics is starting to overtake the significance of who’s right in the economic arguments. There’s an economic cost to pay for this as uncertainty is not an attractor of business investment. But the political cost of a prolonged fight should be a scary wake up call to Labour, Conservatives and the rest.
It’s possible that Labour forces the election it wants, but in doing so loses the trust of the electorate. Enter parties like the Brexit Party which might get real wide-ranging power without offering any real policy other than Brexit. You might think that’s as unlikely as a lying, repulsive, impetuous, emotionally stunted, economically incompetent reality TV star winning the US presidency, and you’d be right.
(At time of writing, I forgot that the Brexit Party had also recruited a candidate who may be most famous for appearing on a popular reality show and not being very good at what the show is meant to be about. But I strictly shouldn’t mention that.)
The political battle is everything now, and if parliamentary democracy can’t or won’t deliver something, anything, even an unpopular but workable option, it may get overwritten by the next charismatic dictator who comes along and says we can have what we want if only we’ll trust them. Even if we obviously can’t trust them.
So Labour needs to get itself together. “We want an election” is not a policy you can put into a manifesto if you get one. So grow a policy.
I’m thinking Labour might regret trashing the WA quite so much. After all, if policy was to deliver Brexit but make it nice and soft, the WA was (and, err, still is) the way to get that. Yes, it seems like a political win to unseat May, but who’s going to celebrate that if it leaves Labour unelectable? I’m not going to write publicly about how a Conservative could reframe the whole debacle to make that happen, but they could. I think we’ll find that at least one of the leadership candidates will be better at basic political competence like this than May.
Paths for Labour to proceed with political credibility have narrowed. I think there are two, and they both involve reframing unpopular Brexit options in the hope that people will buy into one.
The one I don’t want but I think is easier, and stands the best chance of avoiding no-deal Brexit, is to embrace the WA as a bowl of crud nobody wants, but at least it’s a bowl. If we can at least settle on cornflakes (and if you’re feeding a whole crowd one thing, it obviously has to be cornflakes), that’s the way to get them. Start with an empty bowl, which is what the WA should always have been described as. It’s not what you want, it’s the way to get what we all need. But Labour have trashed and possibly smashed the WA bowl to the point where they might not be able to use it at all.
The harder option is to sell the benefits of Remain to people who hate the idea. There’s maybe a little hope here. I actually hate Marmite but still like Twiglets. I know, that makes no sense. They’re covered in Marmite and even say so on the packs now. But if enough people who don’t want Marmite for breakfast can be persuaded that they might like Twiglets instead, it’s doable.
What that means in political practice is not trying to sell the idea of being internationalist to people who don’t want it, but reinforcing the power of being British and proud of it.
Having a vote about what we do with Europe is having power. So let’s have a vote. And what can we do in Europe? Focus on Brits and British influence abroad, which is a positive thing to celebrate, rather than just worrying about people “coming over here taking our jobs”. Focus on the transforming for good we can get done in Europe rather than the paralysis implied by “remain”.
Labour ideally needs reframe “remain” with a better word, and back it up with positive, deliverable promises of what Britain can achieve for the many if it takes back control (yes, use that term) from a paralysed, incompetent, not-listening, failing Conservative party.
That’s snack food for breakfast, eat all you want.
So, what do you think? If you’re reading this far, I’m guessing you’re super into politics, or really can’t sleep.
Is there any good way to bring people happily along into a new point of view on Brexit? Can you think of a better term than “Remain”? And what do you want to do about it?
Love both the critique by Vince and your response. Can’t say I fully understand your use of culinary stuff – we both have porridge laced with fresh fruit every morning!
I think that the nation (with the exception of Scotland and, possibly, Northern Ireland) is in the mood to vote in Farage: he has charisma (if nothing else!) we’re there to be a general election.
I honestly feel that the Remain group could win the argument if there were to be a ‘people’s vote’ but only if they show as clearly as possible the probable consequences of a no deal exit or even a revised May deal.
Thank you! Do you think there’s a way to talk about bad consequences without being dismissed as “Project Fear”, though? That’s a powerful bit of framing. What could overcome it?
‘Project fear’ has been used on both sides of course, Bern, but you have made a good point. I certainly like the idea of focusing more on what we Brits have been and, to an extent, still are, good at.
Perhaps ‘Transform’ of something similar might be better than ‘Remain’; it does, at least, convey an element of hope.
While I still think it important to win the economic argument, there can be no doubt that Farage and those who dance alongside (if not fully in step with) him can and will fight back with the ‘look what we achieved in the past’ and such an attitude could still gain the majority in any people’s vote.
This may sound arrogantly naïve, but I think that, without a British involvement in the heart of the EU, the whole idea could collapse into pieces again with (some) individual nation states being led by tin pot but charismatic leaders willing to push their nations into warfare of one kind or another. In the background, quietly, the larger empire-building nations would be chewing away around the edges.
I don’t think that the presence of the Brexit MEPs in Brussels does anyone any favours, least of all any future PM of whatever party colour. But we are where we are and, to be honest, I think it’s a tragedy. Yet, I’m not without hope. I’m not sure where all this fits with cornflakes, black pudding, marmite and twiglets!?
I think you’re right about British involvement in the EU being important, but not because they couldn’t function without us. According to the BBC’s Europe correspondent, looming Brexit has actually made other countries value the EU more and raise their determination to stay in. Parties which previously campaigned to exit didn’t do that in the EU elections this year. Britain has a future part to play in helping with the reformation of the EU which is now widely talked about and accepted as necessary, and preferred to its break up. We can’t do that from the outside.
The food analogies, by the way, come from the end of my previous article, and particularly this graphic: http://bernleckie.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/brex-preferences-food.jpg It’s drawn from a large academic survey of 5000 people’s preferred leave/remain outcomes, and I tried to draw parallels between the patterns of preferences for each outcome with a recognisable food – e.g. Marmite for “remain” because preferences break down into strong loves or hates with very little middle ground, and cornflakes for “soft Brexit” because most people would agree they’d quite like it even if it were few people’s actual favourite. There’s lots of room to quibble over whether I picked the right food for each option, but I’ve served quite a few breakfasts in different contexts over the years, and I stand by my “expert” opinion!
I was aware of the food analogies, Bern; I read the article but, being a bear of little brain, I couldn’t get my head round them. I guess it’s because I tend to think in terms of toast, porridge and full English!
Anyway, I take your point although I noticed that NF talked about aligning himself and his dance partners with other groups who want to break up the EU. Anyway, we’re off now to more mountainous climes.


After 31 years at Auberge Madeleine, of which 23 were in management, Micheline Cyr is retiring.
A return to a path of commitments and diligence – As well as her academic achievements, Micheline was a socially engaged student. At the end of her Masters in molecular biology, she took up the challenge to obtain a doctorate in social work. It was during this pursuit of her doctorate that she experienced a major turning point in her life and decided to reorient herself towards becoming involved with women in difficulty. At first in 1987 as a night shift counsellor, she became a coordinator in 1989 and managing director in 1995.
Being very concerned with the violence towards homeless women, Micheline developed a flexible feminist intervention, created openings with sensitivity and respect for the different walks of life and encouraged the sharing of knowledge between counsellors and residents of the Auberge.
She favoured cooperation with university researchers and was an active participant in group projects which gave a voice to women. As a spokesperson in the battle against violence towards women, she worked hard to make known the many faces of feminine homelessness. Her expertise is recognized and respected at regional and provincial levels.
At the end of 2010, in the interest of responding to the feminist situation and under the guiding force of its director, Auberge Madeleine began steps towards the acquisition of a new residence allowing them to offer 26 places, and in the autumn of 2014, the private rooms became a reality.
For all women frequenting Auberge Madeleine, Micheline Cyr gave assurance that the shelter was more than just a roof overhead but also a refuge against hunger, fear, cold, violence and loneliness.
She leaves a solid heritage for which we are sincerely thankful.
In a unanimous voice, we wish smooth sailing to the wonderful woman she is.
The Board of Directors and team of the Auberge


You are here: Home / Soup Du Jour / DSC Women’s History event launches matching challenge grant, honors trailblazer
DSC Women’s History event launches matching challenge grant, honors trailblazer
Funds to benefit students through Center for Women & Men
Daytona State College’s Center for Women and Men kicked off its 41st year of serving the area’s most vulnerable adult populations at the annual Women’s History Month luncheon that recognized its founders and honored local activist Cherise Wintz for her fundraising efforts on behalf of Operation Changing Lives, a Daytona Beach-based non-profit medical service organization.The March 30 luncheon also served to announce a matching challenge grant by longtime DSC friends and patrons Andrea and Larry Frank, who agreed to match donations aimed at supporting programs offered through the Center for Women and Men.
For nearly a decade, Wintz has helped raise thousands for Operation Changing Lives, which is dedicated to providing reconstructive surgeries to disadvantaged men, women and children suffering from facial disfigurements. Through a variety of annual fundraising events, the longtime owner of Cherise’s Salon and Cherise’s Heavenly Fitness has helped support the organization’s ability to expand its scope and bring toys and holiday cheer to hundreds of special needs children attending area schools.
“Today we honor a true trailblazer in Cherise Wintz for her dedication and service to others,” said DSC President Tom LoBasso in welcoming the capacity crowd to the event, held in the college’s Daytona Beach Campus Hosseini Center. “When she sees a need, she steps up to make a difference.”
Also stepping up at the luncheon were the Franks, who committed to match dollar-for-dollar donations to the DSC Foundation dedicated to the center – up to $10,000. “Andrea and Larry, we can’t thank you enough for your generosity and commitment to our mission,” said center Director Erin LeDuc. “On behalf of the entire college community and, in particular, the students served by the Center for Women and Men, please accept our sincere thanks and gratitude.”
The Franks noted they were moved to support the center’s most recent extension of services to DSC students and the community. “Larry and I are excited to kick off this challenge during today’s luncheon,” said Mrs. Frank. “We have witnessed first-hand the work that is done here and the way the Center for Women and Men is now expanding its programs and services to reach out and help lift the lives of even more people. It is truly life-saving for so many, and we are delighted and honored to be a part of that effort.”
By the time the luncheon ended, other donors had already committed nearly $1,300 to the challenge.
The theme for Thursday’s luncheon was “Celebrating Trailblazers in Our Community.” Fittingly, program organizers also recognized the center’s founders Ellen O’Shaughnessy and Deortha (Dot) Moore. In 1976, the now retired faculty members shared a vision to help remove barriers to education for women. Theirs was a mission founded on the premise that education and workforce training in a supportive and nurturing environment can lead one out of poverty and uncertainty into a life of independence, self-sufficiency and purpose.
Originally called the Women’s Center, for decades its focus was on helping displaced homemakers with little-to-no work experience, women who because of divorce, widowhood or other circumstances would come to learn new life skills, gain self-confidence and train for employment. Today, the Center for Women and Men reflects an expanded mission and scope dedicated to serving the needs of all students seeking to find their place in the ever-changing social and economic landscapes of our communities.
In addition to anchor programs such as Fresh Start, New Directions and CCAMPIS, the center has become a hub where all students in need can seek out services and help in one central location. The center’s new Falcon Fuel food pantry is helping to mitigate food insecurity among DSC students, an issue that, along with homelessness, has become a growing concern with colleges and universities across the nation. The center also provides temporary emergency bus passes to help students get back and forth to classes, and a lending library helps students offset the cost of textbooks. Further, students wanting to achieve a professional image for job interviews can use the center’s Clothes Closet to look their best.
For information on how to donate to the challenge grant, visit donate.daytonastate.edu or call (386) 506-3110.
Filed Under: Soup Du Jour Tagged With: daytona state college, DSC Women’s History event


Thaidb.info > News > English news of Thailand > Thai Fishing Industry Is Using Slave Labor To Catch The Fish Imported By The U.S.
Thai Fishing Industry Is Using Slave Labor To Catch The Fish Imported By The U.S.
A new report from a British activist group is placing Thailand’s fishing industry in some pretty hot water, with allegations that 15 Burmese workers of a Thai crew were basically slaves. The group is now urging the United States, which is the No. 1 importer of Thai fish products, to hold Thailand accountable for the reported abuses the workers suffered at the hands of the fishing crew.
In the report “Sold to the Sea: human trafficking in Thailand’s fishing industry” by British NGO the Environmental Justice Foundation, the group details the plight of 15 Burmese workers who say they were beaten and abused by a Thai fishing crew, and forced to work for 20 hours a day for either little or no money, reports the Christian Science Monitor.
The men have since been rescued from the ship, where they say they saw others tortured and murdered by the crew for not working hard enough.
“We were shocked by the extreme levels of violence inflicted on and witnessed by migrant men held as captive workers on these boats,” said Steve Trent, executive director of EJF in a statement. “This is not an isolated case, but indicative of the widespread acceptance and use of modern slavery in an industry that feeds a global appetite for seafood.”
The EJF and other anti-trafficking groups now want the U.S. state department to downgrade Thailand in its annual Trafficking in Persons (TIP) report, which would put it at the the lowest level. If Thailand is downgraded from Tier 2 to Tie 3, it would be among the worst countries for trafficking in the world and could result in repercussions like restrictions on U.S. foreign aid and access to institutions like the World Bank.
However, it’s up for debate, say experts, if the U.S. will actually do that, because of the cozy trade and tourist ties the countries share. To that end, America is the No. 1 buyer of Thai’s fish products like tuna and shrimp with exports to the U.S. from Thailand valued at $1.8 billion in frozen and fresh fish in 2011.
The next TIP report is due out next month.
From: http://consumerist.com/2013/05/31/report-thai-fishing-industry-is-using-slave-labor-to-catch-the-fish-imported-by-the-u-s/
Blog Search : Thai Fishing Industry Is Using Slave Labor To Catch The Fish Imported By The U.S.


Aligning with liberals on DACA and LGBTQ rights, Chief Justice John Roberts asserts his independence
WASHINGTON – The winners at the Supreme Court this week were the nation's LGBTQ community and undocumented immigrants. The losers were conservatives, led by President Donald Trump.
And the man most responsible for the unexpected turn of events was the leader of the supposedly conservative court – a label that is coming under a little re-examination.
John Roberts, the chief justice of the United States, was in the majority in both cases, along with all four of the court's liberal justices. In delivering the one-two punch to the president and his base, Roberts served notice that he can be either side's punching bag.
In 2010, he voted with conservatives in Citizens United v. FEC to allow unlimited independent spending by corporations in elections. Liberals are still seething.
Two years later, he voted with liberals to uphold President Barack Obama's Affordable Care Act, which he again saved in 2015. Conservatives have never forgotten.
But while conservatives have more to appreciate in Roberts' overall voting record, he has not been as reliable as they had hoped when he was confirmed as chief justice in 2005, promising to be like an umpire calling balls and strikes. The last 12 months have been perhaps the most obvious case in point.
Last June, the chief justice sided with liberals in striking down the Trump administration's effort to include a question on citizenship in the 2020 census.
"The sole stated reason seems to have been contrived," he said of Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross' decision. "What was provided here was more of a distraction."
In April, he and Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh joined the liberal justices in jettisoning a case that gun-rights groups had pursued in order to bolster the Second Amendment. Earlier this month, his court turned away a bevy of other challenges to states' gun restrictions.
Then this week, Roberts sided with Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch and the liberals in ruling that a federal law banning sex discrimination in the workplace applies to sexual orientation and gender identity. That was followed by Thursday's opinion, which he wrote, saving Obama's Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program for undocumented immigrants brought to the United States as children.
The Department of Homeland Security, Roberts said, "failed to consider the conspicuous issues of whether to retain forbearance and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients."
'Playing games'
Conservatives in and out of Congress were apoplectic.
"If Justice Roberts wants to be a politician, he should resign and run for office," Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., tweeted.
"The most disappointing week at SCOTUS in years," tweeted Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., who once served Roberts as a law clerk at the high court.
"Judging is not a game. It's not supposed to be a game," Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, intoned on the Senate floor. "But sadly, over recent years more and more, Chief Justice Roberts has been playing games with the court to achieve the policy outcomes he desires."
After 15 years at the court's helm, however, the 65-year-old Roberts is accustomed to the criticism.
“When you live in a politically polarized environment, people tend to see everything in those terms," he told about 2,000 people at Temple Emanu-el in Manhattan last September. "That’s not how we at the court function.”
To label Roberts a closet liberal, on the other hand, would be a colossal mistake.
In 2013, he wrote the 5-4 decision striking down the key section of the Voting Rights Act, casting aside federal oversight of racial discrimination in elections. Five years later, he wrote the 5-4 decision upholding the final version of Trump's travel ban against several majority-Muslim nations. Last year, he wrote the 5-4 ruling that gave state legislatures unfettered freedom to draw partisan election districts.
"He is quite consistent," said former U.S. solicitor general Theodore Olson, a conservative who nevertheless argued on behalf of DACA recipients in the case decided Thursday. "He is very much a rule-of-law individual, and someone who cares a great deal about the process by which legal decisions are being made."
In both the census case and the DACA case, Roberts insisted that the Administrative Procedure Act be followed. For him, that meant federal agencies must be able to explain the reasons for their actions.
"We do not decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies," Roberts wrote. "We address only whether the agency complied with the procedural requirement that it provide a reasoned explanation for its action."
'Without fear or favor'
Only the nation's 17th chief justice, Roberts is driven like his predecessors by a desire to maintain the court's legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
Translation: too many 5-4 decisions based on ideology – which for the past decade would mean five justices named by Republican presidents besting four chosen by Democrats – will make the court seem like just another political branch of government.
Roberts is aware, no doubt, that the court is the only branch viewed favorably by a majority of Americans. A Marquette Law School poll in October found 57% of those surveyed trusted the Supreme Court the most, compared to 22% for Congress and 21% for the president. He wants to keep it that way.
Thus it was that during Trump's impeachment trial in the Senate, the chief justice presided even-handedly. When it came time to chastise those arguing for or against the president, he chastised both sides.
When Trump criticized an "Obama judge" in 2018 over an immigration ruling, Roberts issued a rare rebuke. "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," he said.
But earlier this year, he gave Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the same treatment. After Schumer threatened Gorsuch and Kavanaugh if they vote to limit abortion rights, Roberts said such statements "are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous."
Despite his tangles with the executive and legislative branches, Roberts told his New York City audience last fall that he is not influenced by criticisms from the president or Senate Democrats.
“It does not affect how we do our work. We will continue to decide cases according to the Constitution and laws without fear or favor,” he said. "That’s necessary to avoid the politicization of the court.”
As for the critics, Olson, who has known and worked with Roberts over four decades, summarized an old Spanish proverb:
"It's one thing to speak of bulls," he said. "It's another thing to be in the bullring."


Today The Talking Stops
IT would be fair to say that the time for talking stops this afternoon at 3pm, when Argyle kick-off the most important match in their history at Rochdale.
Defeat, combined with an unlikely, but possible, set of results at three other grounds, will spell the end of the Pilgrims’ Football League membership after 93 years.
Fair, but inaccurate. For there has been precious little talking at Home Park this week.
Instead, manager John Sheridan has been concentrating on reinforcing the positives from a run of recent form that has seen recent Argyle victories at Chesterfield and Southend, as well as home wins over Fleetwood, Exeter and Cheltenham.
“We know the importance of the game,” said the manager. “There’s no use going on about it and talking about it.
“I’m not one of those who has meetings and keep telling the players this, that and the other, telling them to ‘do this’ or ‘do that’.
“We’ve been playing well and we’ve just got to do that.
“Rochdale are a good team with some good players, but we’ve picked up one or two decent results away from home of late, other than York. Hopefully, we can take it into the game on Saturday.
“We’ve trained as if we’ve still got 20 games to go. We’ll just prepare as if it’s another game, but, deep down, we all know what’s there to be done.”
A point from the match will render other results meaningless from the Pilgrims’ point of view but John is not playing the safety-first card.
He said: “I don’t think I’ve ever gone out to try and get a draw from a game – we’ll take the game to them. Hopefully, [the players] will respond in the right fashion.”