[UC] Penn study, access to health care, links
This disparity is about to get much worse, as medicaid is eviscerated state by state. Health care is a human right and not a commodity. Compliance is always blamed against the victims, even though similar barriers to treatments continue throughout a poor person's medical care. How can children pull themselves up by the bootstraps and stop being lazy? Join the people of the world and demand a single payer health system! http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20110616_Penn_study_finds_doctors_delaying_or_rejecting_specialty_care_for_publicly_insured_children.html?c=0.7231918639284972posted=yviewAll=y#comments The New England Journal of Medicine (full text) http://www.nejm.org/ You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Fwd: arrested for observing police
In a message dated 6/15/2011 10:56:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, l...@verizon.net writes: Alexine Fleck, an English Literature professor at PCC and volunteer at a women's drug treatment program in North Philly who lives on Larchwood posted an account today in her blog about being arrested for attempting to observe while police accosted a suspected drug user in front of her house. It concerns me that watching the police is being treated as a crime -- I'd like to think that they're helpful and approachable. I seem to recall reading here that UCD had a police liaison, is this the case? Anyway -- Alexine Fleck might have been right in some moral or theoretical sense. But she was asking for the trouble she got by interfering with the police officer. She should have backed off when he (or she) asked her to do so. And if she thought the cop acted improperly, she should have called the Precinct Captain and reported the incident. She wouldn't have to have known the badge number. The vehicles are all numbered and the cops know who was in which car and when. You read it here, first, on the ever-popular Popu-List Courtesy of Al Krigman
[UC] Do you know this tuxedo cat? - Melville, btw Spruce Locust
from westphillylocal.com Black and white tuxedo cat found 15 June 2011 A neighbor, who lives on Melville between Spruce and Locust, emailed us with this information: There is a black and white tuxedo cat that is on my roof. It is hiding under my deck and on the roof next door. He seems scared but doesn’t come across as feral. I am wondering if someone lost him. Details: Black and White Tuxedo White Nose Yellow/Green Eyes I live on Melville between Spruce and Locust. I imagine he climbed out of someone’s window on Melville, got here and now can’t get down. If you lost a cat that looks like the one described above, please email: thecareta...@gmail.com
Re: [UC] Fwd: arrested for observing police
Al or l...@verizon.net, Could one or both of you elaborate on the verbs observe vs. interfere. Observing and interfering are two different activities. Does anyone else on the list have any more information about Alexine's arrest? Mario Giorno On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, krf...@aol.com wrote: ** In a message dated 6/15/2011 10:56:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, l...@verizon.net writes: Alexine Fleck, an English Literature professor at PCC and volunteer at a women's drug treatment program in North Philly who lives on Larchwood posted an account today in her blog about being arrested for attempting to observe while police accosted a suspected drug user in front of her house. It concerns me that watching the police is being treated as a crime -- I'd like to think that they're helpful and approachable. I seem to recall reading here that UCD had a police liaison, is this the case? Anyway -- Alexine Fleck might have been right in some moral or theoretical sense. But she was asking for the trouble she got by interfering with the police officer. She should have backed off when he (or she) asked her to do so. And if she thought the cop acted improperly, she should have called the Precinct Captain and reported the incident. She wouldn't have to have known the badge number. The vehicles are all numbered and the cops know who was in which car and when. You read it here, first, on the ever-popular *Popu-List* Courtesy of Al Krigman -- Mario Giorno PO Box 30932 Philadelphia, PA 19104 westphi...@gmail.com
Re: [UC] Fwd: arrested for observing police
In a message dated 6/16/2011 8:43:11 A.M. Eastern Daylight Time, westphi...@gmail.com writes: Al or _lml3@verizon.net_ (mailto:l...@verizon.net) , Could one or both of you elaborate on the verbs observe vs. interfere. Observing and interfering are two different activities. Does anyone else on the list have any more information about Alexine's arrest? Mario Giorno Good point... but, under circumstances like these, if the cop asks her to back off because -- in her own account -- He said I was putting him in danger, she was interfering and should have complied. Her self-righteous indignation got in the way of common sense. The cops may, indeed, have been wrong. Not for me to judge. Nor for her, at the moment in question. - Alan Krigman KRF Management, ICON/Information Concepts Inc 211 S 45th St, Philadelphia PA 19104-2918 215-349-6500, fax 215-349-6502 krf...@aol.com or al.krig...@krf.icodat.com
Re: [UC] Fwd: arrested for observing police
Mr. Giorno and Al, I worked with Ms. Fleck professionally in the past. I'm glad she is safe and publicly reported on this dimension of the war on drugs! Yes, front line workers with the poor and marginalized are often caught up with the police, and let's not let semantic issues distract from her important report. Most abuse of our marginalized brothers and sisters by the police force go unreported! That is why Alex's front line report is so important and should be thoughtfully considered! The police are not accountable in this society nor are they the appropriate, trained health care workers, who should be intervening in this public health problem. (These are the same cops who stop and frisk) A new international report on the war on drugs has finally highlighted its complete failure as a policy. It has long been recognized by educated individuals that prohibition does not prevent or ameliorate any damage done to addicts, their families, or society. But the range of problems and damage to society caused by prohibition, not the drug use, has not been generally recognized! The war on drugs is another corporate profit scheme domestically and a cloak for profitably arming fascist movements internationally. But it is important to recognize that it only makes all problems for American society worse, while the problems of addiction fester. The corporate driven research community (that I was part of) has long understood that the ratio of treatment resources to interdiction resources allocated by our government is absurd! The ignorance and anger among the general population interferes with any hope for political change with this ratio despite overwhelming evidence. But people need to understand that the war on drugs is actually the worst possible assortment of policies which damages addicts, families, and society as a whole! Please take a few minutes to watch Dr. Gabor Mate, one of the leading and trusted experts on addiction, interviewed after the release of the international report. http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2011/6/6/dr_gabor_mat_more_compassion_less_violence_needed_in_addressing_drug_addiction Thanks to Alex for her advocacy for the marginalized, and for publicly reporting this incident! On 6/16/2011 8:42 AM, Mario Giorno wrote: Al or l...@verizon.net mailto:l...@verizon.net, Could one or both of you elaborate on the verbs observe vs. interfere. Observing and interfering are two different activities. Does anyone else on the list have any more information about Alexine's arrest? Mario Giorno On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 8:20 AM, krf...@aol.com mailto:krf...@aol.com wrote: In a message dated 6/15/2011 10:56:38 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, l...@verizon.net mailto:l...@verizon.net writes: Alexine Fleck, an English Literature professor at PCC and volunteer at a women's drug treatment program in North Philly who lives on Larchwood posted an account today in her blog about being arrested for attempting to observe while police accosted a suspected drug user in front of her house. It concerns me that watching the police is being treated as a crime -- I'd like to think that they're helpful and approachable. I seem to recall reading here that UCD had a police liaison, is this the case? Anyway -- Alexine Fleck might have been right in some moral or theoretical sense. But she was asking for the trouble she got by interfering with the police officer. She should have backed off when he (or she) asked her to do so. And if she thought the cop acted improperly, she should have called the Precinct Captain and reported the incident. She wouldn't have to have known the badge number. The vehicles are all numbered and the cops know who was in which car and when. You read it here, first, on the ever-popular */Popu-List/* Courtesy of Al Krigman -- Mario Giorno PO Box 30932 Philadelphia, PA 19104 westphi...@gmail.com mailto:westphi...@gmail.com No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 9.0.901 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3707 - Release Date: 06/16/11 02:34:00
[UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding
Hi, I just sent emails to all 17 Philadelphia City Council members urging them to save vital educational programs by voting to increase funding to the Philadelphia School District. Please join me in urging them to do the right thing for our kids by clicking the link below: http://action.nutter2011.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6372 Thanks.
[UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding
Hi, I just sent emails to all 17 Philadelphia City Council members urging them to save vital educational programs by voting to increase funding to the Philadelphia School District. Please join me in urging them to do the right thing for our kids by clicking the link below: http://action.nutter2011.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6372 Thanks.
Re: [UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding
How insulated you must be Matt, not to know about the Mayor's proposal to raise the funds through a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages like soda pop... REALLY, read a paper, watch the news, get a life... On Jun 16, 2011, at 2:34 PM, Wolfe J. Matthew wrote: Increase funding for schools. I agree. If you mean increase taxes to raise revenues for schools, I could not disagree more. The worst thing that City Council could do for the children and everyone else in Philadelphia is further chasing jobs out of the city by increasing taxes. There are areas that the district could economize. One that annoys me is the school closing issue. The school district has 70,000 empty seats in its schools, over a third of its overall capacity. That will go up due to the courts stopping them from their illegal practice of capping charter school enrollment. How many schools could they close next year? Ten percent? Twenty five percent? How much money would that save? How many are they closing? None, of course. Undoubtably the schools have a financial crisis due to the incredible mismanagement of Arlene Ackerman and the School Reform Commission. The fact that blame can be easily assigned does not justify throwing the children under the school bus, however. Public education is one of the areas that is a core municipal service and must be funded. New or increased taxes are not only the answer, but a large reason we have the problem we have now. City spending can and should be re-priortized. What should the city be spending money on? Public safety. Sanitation. Maintenance of the transportation infrastructure. Public education. That's about it. If you went through the budget and crossed off everything that had the word program attached to it, you would do little damage to the core municipal services noted above and have plenty of money for the real priorities, including education. Economic development programs. Health and welfare programs. All well-meaning and most have positive results. Certainly not more important than fulfilling the City's responsibility to educate its children, however. Some Councilmen have proposed shifting some spending. More should be done. Even looking at those core services, there are other things to look at. Could private trash haulers work less expensively and more efficiently than our current sanitation crew (which I think does a pretty good job)? We should look into it. While we're looking at privatization, how about the health centers. Do we have hospitals that are under capacity? Why is the city in the business of owing a gas utility, a water utility and an airport? And since we are on the issue of education, remember that public education and public schools are not synonymous terms. Expansion of charter schools and hopefully the voucher bill under consideration in Harrisburg could be a game changer. The bottom line is that there is a real need. It should be met by City Council. The City's problem is not that it taxes too little but that it spends too much. I agree that there should be more money for education. Look to other areas than taxes. -Matt Wolfe On Jun 16, 2011, at 1:44 PM, Rick Conrad wrote: Hi, I just sent emails to all 17 Philadelphia City Council members urging them to save vital educational programs by voting to increase funding to the Philadelphia School District. Please join me in urging them to do the right thing for our kids by clicking the link below: http://action.nutter2011.com/p/sy/action/public/?action_KEY=6372 Thanks. J. Matthew Wolfe Law Offices of J. Matthew Wolfe 4256 Regent Square Philadelphia, PA 19104 (215) 387-7300 matt...@wolfe.org
Re: [UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding
Hah! Rick, I went to the Nutter site and sent the emails as you suggested and they were all rejected - they seem to have been regarded as spam. Nice way for Council members to treat their mayor and his constituents! Mary -Original Message- From: Rick Conrad rdcon...@verizon.net To: UnivCity UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 1:45 pm Subject: [UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding Hi, I just sent emails to all 17 Philadelphia City Council members urging them to save vital educational programs by voting to increase funding to the Philadelphia School District. Please join me in urging them to do the right thing for our kids by clicking the link below: http://action.nutter2011.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6372 Thanks.
Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research
Mary, I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First, most of the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusiness applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than dilute commercial solutions. Second, while the half-life of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in the soil, it does usually break down swiftly. That's why most harmful effects are associated with its handlers, not with food consumers or bypassers in a treated field months later. There was a reason, in other words, why this construction site was fenced off from the public for 75 days after this soil treatment, which was applied early, before the new sod was laid down. You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides, and society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturers alone. You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-list has any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisions on application. This is a consideration that rests on the contracting agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks Recreation, and perhaps Capital Projects as well. It is a citywide issue which has nothing in particular to do with Clark Park. There will never be a situation in which Parks Rec employs one herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input. So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about this subject should direct the fruits of their research toward people who write contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is the City that must decide which construction practices are safe and which construction practices are affordable. --Tony West On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, mcget...@aol.com wrote: Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to humans and animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned. But the very latest research, done by independent, university-based scientists, makes a strong argument that the dangers of this product have been grossly underestimated . Numerous studies have now demonstrated the toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient glyphosate) to amphibians, mammals and humans. In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature births occurred in farm families where the farmer fathers were using Roundup. In Argentina, a region newly-planted in RoundupReady soy and frequently sprayed with Roundup saw a significant increase in certain birth defects. Researchers in France and Argentina, alarmed at this association between Roundup use and harm to humans, undertook research aimed at testing whether there was a cause and effect relationship at work. They concluded that Roundup, at concentrations well below those commonly employed in agriculture, produced birth defects in amphibians, reduced fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human fetal, embryonic and placental cells. Other researchers have observed an association between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma in humans. Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely on research that 1) was performed by scientists in the employ of its manufacturer, much of it never published in any peer-reviewed journals, and with evidence that negative findings were suppressed and 2) investigated the toxicity of glyphosate alone, ignoring the fact that the additives in the Roundup compound greatly increase the toxic effect. Two just-published reports address the relationship between Roundup and birth defects and the safety of crops genetically modified to tolerate spraying with Roundup (the plants store Roundup, which thus enters the food supply either directly through human consumption, or indirectly, as animal feed that then is stored by the animals, eventually consumed by humans). They are both excellent reviews of the status of research on Roundup and a good source for the most important scientific literature on the topic. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5 http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf, Reading these reviews, as well as articles on the toxic effects of incredibly small doses of Roundup on human fetal and placental cells, certainly shakes one's faith in Monsanto's claims of its being harmless. In any case, neither Frank Chance nor the FOCP are the pesticide police. They are not responsible for its application in Clark Park, nor are they scientists equipped to judge its safety. Clearly, the responsibility lies with the city and its agents (UCD, landscape contractors, etc). How much Roundup was used in Clark Park is only part of the story. How much of this pesticide has been spread around the city at large? Perhaps that question should be posed to the Parks and Rec people. I don't
Re: [UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding
Same thing happened to my 17 emails, Mary. The whole City Council seems to be insulated, shock-proof, fragile, and beyond public debates. Thanks for trying any way! Rick On Jun 16, 2011, at 4:28 PM, mcget...@aol.com wrote: Hah! Rick, I went to the Nutter site and sent the emails as you suggested and they were all rejected - they seem to have been regarded as spam. Nice way for Council members to treat their mayor and his constituents! Mary -Original Message- From: Rick Conrad rdcon...@verizon.net To: UnivCity UnivCity@list.purple.com Sent: Thu, Jun 16, 2011 1:45 pm Subject: [UC] Tell Philadelphia City Council to increase school funding Hi, I just sent emails to all 17 Philadelphia City Council members urging them to save vital educational programs by voting to increase funding to the Philadelphia School District. Please join me in urging them to do the right thing for our kids by clicking the link below: http://action.nutter2011.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=6372 Thanks.
Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research
Tony said below: There will never be a situation in which Parks Rec employs one herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input. Tony, how do you know this? Margie On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Anthony West wrote: Mary, I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First, most of the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusiness applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than dilute commercial solutions. Second, while the half-life of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in the soil, it does usually break down swiftly. That's why most harmful effects are associated with its handlers, not with food consumers or bypassers in a treated field months later. There was a reason, in other words, why this construction site was fenced off from the public for 75 days after this soil treatment, which was applied early, before the new sod was laid down. You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides, and society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturers alone. You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-list has any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisions on application. This is a consideration that rests on the contracting agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks Recreation, and perhaps Capital Projects as well. It is a citywide issue which has nothing in particular to do with Clark Park. There will never be a situation in which Parks Rec employs one herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input. So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about this subject should direct the fruits of their research toward people who write contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is the City that must decide which construction practices are safe and which construction practices are affordable. --Tony West On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, mcget...@aol.com wrote: Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to humans and animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned. But the very latest research, done by independent, university-based scientists, makes a strong argument that the dangers of this product have been grossly underestimated . Numerous studies have now demonstrated the toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient glyphosate) to amphibians, mammals and humans. In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature births occurred in farm families where the farmer fathers were using Roundup. In Argentina, a region newly-planted in RoundupReady soy and frequently sprayed with Roundup saw a significant increase in certain birth defects. Researchers in France and Argentina, alarmed at this association between Roundup use and harm to humans, undertook research aimed at testing whether there was a cause and effect relationship at work. They concluded that Roundup, at concentrations well below those commonly employed in agriculture, produced birth defects in amphibians, reduced fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human fetal, embryonic and placental cells. Other researchers have observed an association between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma in humans. Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely on research that 1) was performed by scientists in the employ of its manufacturer, much of it never published in any peer-reviewed journals, and with evidence that negative findings were suppressed and 2) investigated the toxicity of glyphosate alone, ignoring the fact that the additives in the Roundup compound greatly increase the toxic effect. Two just-published reports address the relationship between Roundup and birth defects and the safety of crops genetically modified to tolerate spraying with Roundup (the plants store Roundup, which thus enters the food supply either directly through human consumption, or indirectly, as animal feed that then is stored by the animals, eventually consumed by humans). They are both excellent reviews of the status of research on Roundup and a good source for the most important scientific literature on the topic. http://www.scribd.com/doc/57277946/RoundupandBirthDefectsv5 http://www.gmwatch.org/files/GMsoy_SustainableResponsible_Sept2010_Summary.pdf , Reading these reviews, as well as articles on the toxic effects of incredibly small doses of Roundup on human fetal and placental cells, certainly shakes one's faith in Monsanto's claims of its being harmless. In any case, neither Frank Chance nor the FOCP are the pesticide police. They are not responsible for its application in Clark Park, nor are they scientists equipped to judge its
Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research
Tony, This was covered by the studies which showed the hazardous effects in extremely dilute concentrations... did you miss that Rick Conrad On Jun 16, 2011, at 9:24 PM, Anthony West wrote: you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First, most of the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusiness applications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated than dilute commercial solutions You are receiving this because you are subscribed to the list named UnivCity. To unsubscribe or for archive information, see http://www.purple.com/list.html.
Re: [UC] Roundup in Clark Park - latest research
Actually, in my experience in community organizing, this is absolutely false. Public institutions respond to the people who are pressuring them, and ignore those who are not. It may or may not be just or fair, but it is. If we want the rec department to stop applying toxic chemicals to Clark Park, we can get that to happen. It would not be that hard. Kimm On 6/16/11 9:24 PM, Margie Politzer m.polit...@verizon.net wrote: Tony said below: There will never be a situation in which Parks Rec employs one herbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based on local input. Tony, how do you know this? Margie On Jun 16, 2011, at 7:08 PM, Anthony West wrote: Mary, I appreciate your research on this topic! But you seem still to step around two key facts in Frank Chance's report on Roundup. First,most of the malign findings in human beings occur with agribusinessapplications, which can be up to 20 times more concentrated thandilute commercial solutions. Second, while the half-life ofglyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, varies widely in thesoil, it does usually break down swiftly. That's why most harmfuleffects are associated with its handlers, not with food consumers orbypassers in a treated field months later. There was a reason, inother words, why this construction site was fenced off from thepublic for 75 days after this soil treatment, which was appliedearly, before the new sod was laid down. You are certainly right that further consideration should be paid to research into potential risks of glyphosate and other pesticides,and society should not rely on research paid for by manufacturersalone. You are also right that neither Friends of Clark Park nor UC-listhas any scientific authority to judge these issues or make decisionson application. This is a consideration that rests on thecontracting agencies -- in this case, the Dept. of Parks Recreation, and perhaps Capital Projects as well. It is a citywideissue which has nothing in particular to do with Clark Park. Therewill never be a situation in which Parks Rec employs oneherbicide in a project in Park X and another in Park Y, based onlocal input. So readers with a (commendable, in my eye) concern about thissubject should direct the fruits of their research toward people whowrite contracts for the City of Philadelphia. In the end, it is theCity that must decide which construction practices are safe andwhich construction practices are affordable. --Tony West On 6/16/2011 1:55 AM, mcget...@aol.com wrote: Frank Chase's reassurances that the pesticide Roundup is safe to humans and animals, are, I am sure, well-intentioned. But the very latest research, done by independent, university-based scientists, makes a strong argument that the dangers of this product have been grossly underestimated . Numerous studies have now demonstrated the toxicity of Roundup (not just its main ingredient glyphosate) to amphibians, mammals and humans. In Ontario, a dramatic increase in miscarriages and premature births occurred in farm families where the farmer fathers were using Roundup. In Argentina, a region newly-planted in RoundupReady soy and frequently sprayed with Roundup saw a significant increase in certain birth defects. Researchers in France and Argentina, alarmed at this association between Roundup use and harm to humans, undertook research aimed at testing whether there was a cause and effect relationship at work. They concluded that Roundup, at concentrations well below those commonly employed in agriculture, produced birth defects in amphibians, reduced fertility in rodents, and was lethal to human fetal, embryonic and placental cells. Other researchers have observed an association between exposure to Roundup and increases in lymphoma in humans. Apparently, the position that Roundup is harmless is based largely on research that 1)
