Tuesday, February 28, 2017

Politics Podcast: Where Do The Parties Go From Here? - FiveThirtyEight






Subscribe: iTunes |
ESPN App |
Download |
RSS |
New to podcasts?



The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast welcomes Perry Bacon Jr., who recently joined the staff and will be covering the Trump administration from Washington, D.C. Perry discusses President Trump’s budget proposal and previews Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress. The crew also wraps up the “Party Time” series with Galen Druke and debates which wing of which party has been most upended by recent politics, as well as which wing is best poised to capitalize on the shifts.



You can listen to the episode by clicking the “play” button above or by downloading it in iTunes, the ESPN App or your favorite podcast platform. If you are new to podcasts, learn how to listen.


The FiveThirtyEight Politics podcast publishes Monday evenings, with occasional special episodes throughout the week. Help new listeners discover the show by leaving us a rating and review on iTunes. Have a comment, question or suggestion for “good polling vs. bad polling”? Get in touch by email, on Twitter or in the comments.



A Cardiologist Explains Which Health Food Fads Are Actually Good for You - Fortune


Fat was the enemy — until it was rather abruptly usurped by sugar. Now nuts and whole-milk dairy products are making a comeback, while artificial sweeteners and sugar-laced low-fat snacks and drinks are viewed with a sudden suspicion.

If you’re experiencing whiplash, you’re not alone. “There is widespread chaos in the world of nutrition,” says Andrew Freeman, the director of cardiovascular prevention and wellness at National Jewish Health in Denver. “It seems recommendations swing back and forth all the time.”

In part, this is because nutrition is a slow and constantly evolving science. Well-designed studies, which ideally include a long duration time, a large sample size, and require participants to stick to a strict diet, are difficult and time-consuming to execute.

This lack of clarity is exacerbated by the media, who thrive on highlighting the radical and new at the expense of more nuanced and gradual shifts, and Big Food, which works to influence the language used in federal recommendations and frequently takes advantage of consumer confusion to push new products. Take cholesterol. The latest dietary guidelines from the United States Department of Agriculture, released in 2015, removed the 300-milligram daily limit on cholesterol. Many media outlets jumped on the change to craft dramatic headlines (such as “Cholesterol in food not a concern, new report says”), while the egg industry rushed to interpret the move as: eat as many eggs as you want!

This, according to Freeman, is a gross misreading. Yes, the new guidelines remove a daily cholesterol limit, but they also state that “individuals should eat as little dietary cholesterol as possible.”

To maintain heart health, restricted cholesterol intake is still better, he says.

And that’s just one example. In an effort to cut through all the noise and hype around what constitutes healthy eating Freeman, along with 11 other researchers, analyzed nearly 150 nutrition studies to determine which food fads are backed by science, and which are not. Their results are compiled in a review, published on Monday in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

Here’s where they came down on everything from gluten to juicing to the benefits of acai berries.

Cooking oils

Related

FRANCE-MATERNITY-DELIVERY

Coconut is having a moment. Put its name before water or milk, and the product suddenly achieves trendy “superfood” status. This is also true for coconut oil, which is popping up in recipes from soups to muffins.

When it comes to heart health, however, you’re probably better sticking to olive oil, which has been shown over multiple studies to decrease the likelihood of heart disease. For coconut oil, which is high in saturated fat, the jury’s still out — there’s simply not enough data, Freeman concludes, to understand its impact. Per the review, “Current claims of documented health benefits of the tropical oils are unsubstantiated and use of these oils should be discouraged.”

Antioxidants

The term has gained a lot of traction of late. Acai, a red fruit that grows in South and Central America, became particularly trendy after being touted for its antioxidants and corresponding health benefits on “The Oprah Winfrey Show.”

Despite the fruit’s now mythical qualities, you’ll get just as many benefits from less exotic berries. In other words, go ahead and eat acai, but if the fruit isn’t handy, grab some blueberries, raspberries, or strawberries instead, says Freeman. The impact is the same.

Meanwhile, there’s no evidence antioxidant supplements benefit heart health, says Freeman. Instead, antioxidants are best consumed via fruits and vegetables, particularly colorful fruits and leafy greens.

Nuts

As evidence of sugar’s deleterious impact on heart health grows stronger, once shunned high-fat foods are making a comeback. First in line? Nuts, which are high in calories but also heart-healthy fats. Freeman says go ahead and add them to the snack rotation, but “beware of consuming too many, because nuts are high in calories,” he says. “A lot of people are eating loads — you can easily eat several hundred calories in one sitting, so people need to be careful that they don’t overdue it.”

Juices

Juice cleanses are fun to Instagram, but their impact on heart health is less clear. Primarily, this is because juicing makes it easy to consume a large amount of calories and natural sugars before getting full (think about how much more quickly you can drink a glass with the juice from four apples than actually eat four apples). While juices can lead to weight loss and other heart benefits if they replaces foods high in saturated fat and added sugars. “Until comparative data become available,” the review concludes, “whole food consumption is preferred, with juicing primarily reserved for situations when daily intake of vegetables and fruits is inadequate.”

Gluten

Aside from the estimated 6% of the population that has celiac disease or gluten-related sensitivities, there is little evidence that gluten promotes weight gain or other negative health effects. “There’s a lot of controversy, not a lot of data,” says Freeman.

For those without a gluten sensitivity, he recommends focusing on eating unprocessed grains rather than avoiding gluten altogether. Avoiding gluten is not always synonymous with healthy eating. Take gluten-free pizza: removing the gluten doesn’t remove the carbohydrates and the cheese.

The bottom line:

It’s not sexy, but the research shows that the key to heart health isn’t revolutionary: eat lots of fruits, vegetables, whole grains, and legumes, and a moderate amount of nuts, lean meats, vegetable oils, and low-fat dairy products. Despite dramatic headlines and the marketing efforts of Big Food and supplement companies, there is no “superfood” magic bullet that will erase the effects of an unhealthy diet or lead to weight loss on its own. Instead, healthy eating is about moderation, says Freeman. A boring message, maybe, but one backed by science.

President Trump's health care nightmare - The Week Magazine


















"Now I have to tell you, it's an unbelievably complex subject," President Trump said on Monday, speaking about the Republican effort to repeal the Affordable Care Act. "Nobody knew that health care could be so complicated." By which I suppose he meant, "Everybody except me knew that health care is really complicated, but they just explained it to me, and wow."


Hard though it may be to determine what lurks in the depths of the president's mind, he now appears to be realizing that his promise to repeal the ACA and replace it with "something terrific" may not be so easy to achieve. In his defense, it does seem that congressional Republicans are also only now grappling with the complexity of health care reform (they probably knew it was complicated, but preferred not to think about it until they were forced to). But the truth is that the problem isn't just that it's complicated. Overhauling a car's transmission is complicated, but if you know what you're doing you can accomplish it to everyone's satisfaction.



The trouble with health care reform is that it requires tradeoffs between competing goals, like low cost and comprehensive insurance, or universal coverage and individual flexibility. And once you have a system in place that reaches some kind of compromise between all those goals, undoing it will not only create tremendous upheaval, it will also create winners and losers. Which may be hard to accept, if you thought that once you took power there'd be so much winning we'd all get tired of winning.


One explanation for why the president is suddenly realizing the complexity of this task may lie in some meetings he has had recently. As The Washington Post reported, last Friday he met with Ohio Gov. John Kasich (R), who accepted the ACA's expansion of Medicaid and as a result was able to see 691,000 more of his constituents get coverage, almost entirely at the expense of the federal government. Kasich tried to convince Trump that turning Medicaid into a block grant and then cutting it — what many Republican plans call for — would be a bad idea:


Over the next 45 minutes, according to Kasich and others briefed on the session, the governor made his pitch while the president eagerly called in several top aides and then got Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price on the phone. At one point, senior adviser Jared Kushner reminded his father-in-law that House Republicans are sketching out a different approach to providing access to coverage. "Well, I like this better," Trump replied, according to a Kasich adviser. [The Washington Post]



But the next day, Trump met with two Republican governors who had rejected the Medicaid expansion, Scott Walker of Wisconsin and Rick Scott of Florida, who told him something different. And on Monday he met with CEOs from insurance companies, who accepted the ACA's new regulations because they'd get a lot of new customers; they surely told him of their trepidation about the loss of the individual mandate. And governors meeting in Washington just got a grim report from Avalere Health and McKinsey and Company, showing that the Republican plans could lead to drastic declines in the number of people with health coverage.


It's all so confusing! Republican governors disagree about Medicaid repeal, and there are even differences within the White House: Vice President Mike Pence is gung-ho for repeal, while Trump advisers like Steven Miller and Stephen Bannon are reportedly more wary of a public backlash. So Trump can't even get the same answer from every Republican he talks to; forget about all those angry citizens pouring into town halls to demand that their representatives not repeal the law. The president's head is spinning with all this complexity. Why can't they just show him "something terrific" and then pass that so he can sign it?



Alas, with no such magical unicorn in the offing, here's where Trump and the Republicans are left. Insurers don't want the ACA repealed, nor do doctors, nor do hospitals, nor does the AARP (possibly the most powerful lobby in Washington), nor does the public as a whole. Republican members of Congress want to repeal it, but they're terrified of the backlash that will almost inevitably result. Legislative gambits like "repeal and delay" (pass repeal now but with a countdown clock, to force themselves to come up with a replacement) keep getting floated and then discarded.


So perhaps in the wee hours of the morning, as he settles in for a soothing hour or two spent with Fox & Friends, Trump may find himself haunted by a troubling thought: What if there's no good way out of this problem? Repeal the law outright and the base will be happy, but millions will suffer (and blame him for it). Don't repeal it and the base will be enraged. Pass a Republican replacement plan and the political blowback will be intense, as the fake media keeps showing tear-jerking stories of families left without care.


It's a conundrum, alright. And it is definitely not terrific.







Monday, February 27, 2017

Mengintip Perbandingan Militer Antara Indonesia dan Arab Saudi, Mana yang Lebih Hebat?





Berbicara soal kekayaan dan kemakmuran, memang harus kita akui kalau Arab Saudi lebih hebat dari Indonesia. Hal ini bisa kita lihat dari berbagai hal, mulai dari taraf hidup masyarakat sana yang elit, sampai fenomena kedatangan Raja Salman ke Indonesia yang luar biasa mewah persiapannya. Arab benar-benar menunjukkan kelasnya sebagai negara kaya.


Indonesia mungkin boleh kalah saing dengan Arab Saudi untuk urusan kemakmuran, tapi dalam hal militer tunggu dulu. Kamu mungkin tidak percaya, tapi faktanya, kita ternyata menang peringkat dari negara minyak ini. Selisih peringkatnya bahkan tidak satu atau dua tapi sepuluh. Menurut Global Fire Power, Indonesia sekarang berada di posisi 12 dunia, sedangkan Arab Saudi ada di peringkat 24. Perbedaan 10 peringkat ini tentu menunjukkan jarak kekuatan yang cukup besar.


Masih soal militer Indonesia VS Arab Saudi, berikut detail komparasi kekuatan keduanya.


Indonesia Menang Telak Soal Tentara


Tentara Indonesia lebih banyak [Image Source]
Berbicara soal tentara, Indonesia bisa dibilang jauh lebih gereget dari Arab Saudi. Hal ini bisa kita lihat dari jumlah serdadu NKRI yang lebih banyak yakni 476 ribu personel aktif sedangkan Arab hanya 235 ribu saja. Ini belum termasuk pasukan cadangan kita yang jumlahnya 400 ribu sedangkan mereka hanya 25 ribu saja.


Kekuatan Darat Arab Lebih Greget


Kekuatan darat Arab lebih hebat [Image Source]
Meskipun kita menang jumlah tentara, namun untuk kekuatan tempur darat Indonesia bisa dibilang kalah. Hal ini bisa dilihat dari jumlah alutsista kedua negara yang beda jauh. Misalnya tank, Indonesia hanya punya 468 buah saja, sedangkan Arab Saudi memiliki sekitar 1.210 biji tank. Ini juga terjadi pada kendaraan lapis baja kita yang jumlahnya pun kalah telak, yakni 1.089 berbanding 5.472.


Kekuatan Udara Arab juga Lebih Perkasa


Kekuatan udara Arab hebat [Image Source]
Tak hanya menang di ranah kekuatan darat, Arab Saudi juga unggul di area kekuatan udara. Hal ini juga dilihat dari jumlah alutsista udara mereka yang luar biasa banyak. Misalnya, pesawat tempur mereka yang jumlahnya 245 sedangkan kita hanya 35 saja. Demikian juga kapal serbu, Indonesia hanya punya 58 buah sedangkan Arab memiliki 245 biji.


Kekuatan Laut Indonesia Lebih Greget


Indonesia unggul kekuatan laut [Image Source]
Indonesia boleh tidak kalah saing di ranah darat dan udara, tapi untuk laut kita lebih unggul. Parameternya tetap sama yakni jumlah alutsista laut Indonesia yang lebih melimpah. Misalnya jumlah fleet Indonesia yang totalnya 221 sedangkan Arab Saudi hanya 55 buah, kemudian untuk corvette kita punya 10 mereka 4 dan kapal selam dua buah untuk Indonesia dan Arab 0 alias tidak punya.


Meskipun militer Arab Saudi kalah jika dibandingkan kita, namun mereka sangat disegani di dunia. Hampir tak ada satu pun negara barat yang berani macam-macam. Bahkan Amerika saja mau sedikit menurunkan egonya dan kemudian menjalin pertemanan dengan Arab Saudi. Kekuatan minyak dan uang mereka juga memainkan peran penting di skala global. Jadi, meskipun militernya biasa, mereka tetap jemawa.




Neighborhoods with Nature Tied to Better Mental Health - PsychCentral.com


Neighborhoods with Nature Tied to Better Mental Health

A new study from the U.K. finds that living in a neighborhood with more birds, shrubs, and trees may help to reduce the risk of depression, anxiety, and stress.

Researchers studied hundreds of people and found that being able to see birds, shrubs, and trees around the home, whether people lived in urban or more leafy suburban neighborhoods.

University of Exeter, the British Trust for Ornithology, and the University of Queensland study involved a survey of mental health in over 270 people from different ages, incomes, and ethnicities.

Researchers also found that those who spent less time out of doors than usual in the previous week were more likely to report they were anxious or depressed.

After conducting extensive surveys of the number of birds in the morning and afternoon of three communities, the study found that lower levels of depression, anxiety, and stress were associated with the number of birds people could see in the afternoon.

Researchers studied afternoon bird numbers — which tend to be lower than birds generally seen in the morning — because are more in keeping with the number of birds that people are likely to see in their neighborhood on a daily basis.

In the study, common types of birds including blackbirds, robins, blue tits, and crows were seen. However, the study did not find a relationship between the species of birds and mental health, but rather the number of birds they could see from their windows, in the garden, or in their neighborhood.

Previous studies have found that the ability of most people to identify different species is low, suggesting that for most people it is interacting with birds, not just specific birds, that provides well-being.

University of Exeter research fellow Dr. Daniel Cox, who led the study, said, “This study starts to unpick the role that some key components of nature play for our mental well-being. Birds around the home, and nature in general, show great promise in preventative health care, making cities healthier, happier places to live.”

The positive association between birds, shrubs, and trees and better mental health applied, even after controlling for variation in neighborhood deprivation, household income, age, and a wide range of other socio-demographic factors.

The current study expands an earlier which found that watching birds makes people feel relaxed and connected to nature.

Source: University of Exeter

Related Articles

APA Reference
Nauert PhD, R. (2017). Neighborhoods with Nature Tied to Better Mental Health. Psych Central.
Retrieved on February 28, 2017, from https://psychcentral.com/news/2017/02/27/neighborhoods-with-nature-tied-to-better-mental-health/116967.html

Among otherwise mediocre poll results, a big gift to President Trump - Washington Post



Then-President-elect Donald Trump speaks during the Louisiana GOP’s Get-Out-the-Vote rally at the Dow Chemical Hangar in Baton Rouge on Dec. 9, 2016. (Jabin Botsford/The Washington Post)

For the most part, the results of the new NBC News-Wall Street Journal national poll are in line with other recent surveys. President Trump, the pollsters found, is underwater in his approval rating — meaning that more people disapprove of the job he’s doing than approve.


This makes him “the first president of the post-World War II era with a net negative approval rating in his first gauge of public opinion,” in the words of the Journal’s Michael Bender.

Other recent polls have found the same thing, with the split largely falling along partisan lines. Republicans tend to think Trump is doing very well; Democrats, not so much. That’s probably in part why a majority of those asked by NBC and the Journal said that Trump is doing about as they expected: His party expected him to do well and his opponents didn’t.

President Trump ripped into the media Feb. 16 and said his administration "is running like a fine-tuned machine." (Reuters)


The pollsters then asked an interesting question: Did respondents think that Trump’s stumbles — a “number of challenges that the Trump administration has faced early on,” as they put it — were simply the growing pains of a new administration, or a function of Trump making mistakes? Most people said the latter — about in line with the results on the approval rating.


There’s an interesting question that floats underneath the surface of concerns about how Trump’s first month has gone. The administration is insistent that people should think that any problems are growing pains — if there are any “challenges” at all, which they’re generally loath to concede. The president and his allies have generally insisted not only that things are going well, but that suggestions of hiccups are, in fact, a function of media bias. “Fake news,” and all that.

So is that message resonant? Do people think that the media unfairly shaped opposition to Trump? A graph in the Journal’s story broaches the subject.


Except you’ll note that the question isn’t actually about the media. It’s about the media “and other elites.”

As it turns out, the question is even more bizarrely lopsided than just that. In full, it asked people whether they agreed or disagreed with the statement: “The news media and other elites are exaggerating the problems with the Trump administration because they are uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents.”


Asking whether people thought the media was being unfair would be useful! Do you agree with this statement: “The media is being unfairly critical of President Trump.” Simple enough.

Looping in the idea that the media is part of a shadowy cabal of elites — a not-uncommon assumption, mind you, however questionable — shifts the weight of the question dramatically. Are elites out to get Trump? That can mean anything or anyone! And then the question goes further, implying that that these elites (of which the media is a part) are “uncomfortable and threatened with the kind of change that Trump represents.” Unscrupulous campaigns will ask questions like this to implant the idea among listeners that the media are elites and do feel threatened with Trump’s change. Why these pollsters would isn’t clear. What do we learn from the question?

Especially since the question was asked immediately after the pollsters asked whether people agreed or disagreed with this statement: “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” The image conjured in your mind by that question is the image that carried over into the “media and elites” question.

We know  Trump likes to pick out evidence that he’s seen as more trustworthy than the media. Here he is, tweeting a survey that offered that response.

Another survey, from Quinnipiac University, showed the opposite result to a similar query. Trump ignored it.

This question? This question, Trump will like. He’s worked very hard to cast himself in opposition to the press, to place the media in the realm of the other. The media, you’ll remember, were cast as “enemies of the people,” sliding reporters across the table into the nebulous realm of the Bad People who don’t want to Make America Great Again. It’s an unfair and self-serving formulation — and one which this question reinforces. Asking whether elites are alarmed at Trump changing the status quo is one thing. Asking if the media is part of that effort is just bizarre.

The pollsters also asked people whether they were comfortable with the change they expected Trump to bring to Washington. Most said they expected some change.


Among those who did, about half of respondents said they figured that change would be for the better.


The other quarter, those who expected change for the worse? Probably part of that shadowy cabal of elites of which every working journalist in America is apparently a member.

Politics In The News: Previewing President Trump's Week Ahead - NPR



On Tuesday, President Trump will address Congress. Over the weekend, he doubled down on his attacks on the press and tweeted that he will not attend the White House Correspondents' Dinner in April.







RACHEL MARTIN, HOST:


President Donald Trump gives his first joint address to Congress Tuesday night. We're also expecting a revised executive order on refugees later this week.


DAVID GREENE, HOST:


And over the weekend, the president continued his war on the press, announcing on Twitter that he would not be putting on the tuxedo and attending the White House Correspondents' Association Dinner this year.


MARTIN: Deputy White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders explained the decision on ABC's "This Week" yesterday by saying this president wasn't elected to spend his time with reporters and celebrities.


(SOUNDBITE OF TV SHOW, "THIS WEEK")


SARAH HUCKABEE SANDERS: I think it's kind of naive of us to think that we can all walk into a room for a couple of hours and pretend that some of that tension isn't there. You know, one of the things we say in the South - if a Girl Scout egged your house, would you buy cookies from her? I think that this is a pretty similar scenario. There's no reason for him to go in and sit and pretend like this is going to be just another Saturday night.


MARTIN: So it seems like a good moment to invite Jonah Goldberg back into our studios, which we have done. He is, of course, the senior editor at National Review.


Hi, Jonah.


JONAH GOLDBERG: Great to be here.


MARTIN: I loved what Sarah said - the egging, the Girl Scouts - apt metaphor.


GOLDBERG: Yeah. I mean, on the White House Correspondents' Dinner itself, rather than the larger question of the media, rarely have I been so torn about an issue that matters so little.


MARTIN: I know. Right?


GOLDBERG: (Laughter).


MARTIN: I mean, this is the thing. We should say - the White House Correspondents' Dinner has been maligned by all kinds of folks for being the epitome of the swamp Donald Trump talks about draining.


GOLDBERG: No, it's exactly right. It's very much like the ball at the beginning of "The Hunger Games" in the capital city. And I find the White House Correspondents' Dinner, which I've been to a couple times, pretty repugnant these days. And so I'm kind of glad to see it taken down a notch. On the larger question of what he's doing with the media, I think that is a much bigger problem.


MARTIN: Well, before we get to the larger issue, does Donald Trump - does he win at the tactical level for now getting to claim the moral high ground in this moment with the correspondents' dinner?


GOLDBERG: Again, I don't know that there's that high a moral - I mean, these are very low hills on both sides (laughter) when it comes to the moral high ground. The White House Correspondents' Dinner has become sort of the epitome of the celebrification (ph) of journalism and the haughtiness of the White House - of the Washington press corps is on display there. So when Trump sticks it to them, I think there are a lot of people who would say - good. And at the same time, given the larger context of Trump's war with the media, it kind of does look, to some people at least, like he's running away from a fight.


MARTIN: So let's play, now, a clip of tape that gets to this larger war on the press. This is President Trump talking at the Conservative Political Action Conference Friday.


(SOUNDBITE OF ARCHIVED RECORDING)


PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: A few days ago, I called the fake news the enemy of the people - and they are. They are the enemy of the people.


(APPLAUSE)


TRUMP: Because they have no sources, they just make them up when there are none.


MARTIN: The enemy of the people - that is - that's big language with severe implications.


GOLDBERG: Yeah, no. It's - I think it's grossly irresponsible, and it's also basically just indefensible. Look - I've made my living for a very long time beating up on liberal media bias. I think it's a real thing. That is not what he's saying. When he says that the press makes up sources - and one of the examples he used was the story about nine sources, I think, in The Washington Post about Michael Flynn. That story led to Michael Flynn being fired. So if it were all fake, made-up sources, why would the Trump administration fire him?


More broadly, when you say that the media is fake, what he's basically saying - I would have no problem with him going after fake news. The real fake news is that sort of garbage stuff on Facebook and whatnot. What he is basically saying is any critical or inconvenient coverage of me is wholly fake and illegitimate. And I think that is a very dangerous route for the president of the United States to go down in terms of his rhetoric.


It also leaves him no place to go. He's basically taking it to 11, you know, in the first month of his presidency and basically saying that all hostile coverage of me is illegitimate and fake and all positive coverage of me is real - sort of like his attitude towards polls. If the numbers are good for him, they're great polls. If the numbers are bad for him, they're bad polls. That is not the way we do democratic discourse in the United States.


MARTIN: So he's going to make a speech on Tuesday night, the first to a joint session of Congress. What kind of work does he have to do? What do you want to hear from him?


GOLDBERG: Well, I think the smartest thing for him to do would be to just focus, you know, monomaniacally on a serious legislative agenda. Set the record - set the agenda for the House and the Senate. Don't do any of this media stuff. Don't seem like you're defensive. Don't be explaining.


Just simply say you want to set up an agenda for what you campaigned on because that's what the American people actually want from him, and it's certainly what his base voters actually really want from him. A lot of these sort of forgotten men and women were not voting for Donald Trump to declare war on anonymous sourcing in The New York Times. They wanted jobs. They wanted, you know, stuff on trade. And I think that's what he should focus on.


MARTIN: Jonah Goldberg is senior editor at National Review and a columnist for the LA Times.


Thanks so much for coming in, Jonah.


GOLDBERG: Great to be here. Thank you.



Copyright © 2017 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.



NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by Verb8tm, Inc., an NPR contractor, and produced using a proprietary transcription process developed with NPR. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.


Is the Oscar screwup a bad omen for Northwestern? - Chicago Tribune



Chicago Tribune

Is the Oscar screwup a bad omen for Northwestern?
Chicago Tribune
Jordan Horowitz, a Northwestern graduate and producer of "La La Land," shows the envelope revealing "Moonlight" as the true winner of best picture at the Oscars on Feb. 26, 2017, at the Dolby Theatre in Los Angeles. Presenter Warren Beatty looks on ...

and more »

GOP returns to daunting task of dismantling Obamacare, selling its plan to Trump - CNN



CNN

GOP returns to daunting task of dismantling Obamacare, selling its plan to Trump
CNN
(CNN) Republicans return to Washington on Monday to what is becoming an increasingly daunting undertaking: Dismantling Obamacare. When Congress went home last week, many lawmakers confronted an unpleasant reality. At town halls spanning the ...
6 steps for Republicans to show up at their own town halls and winThe Hill (blog)
Calling Republicans' bluff on ObamacareWashington Post (blog)
Fears over pre-existing conditions haunt Obamacare debatePolitico
Chicago Tribune -Washington Examiner -MSNBC -Slate Magazine (blog)
all 132 news articles »

Sodo homeless camp to close over health, safety issues - The Seattle Times


The homeless encampment proposed as an alternative for people leaving The Jungle is scheduled to be closed next month over health and safety concerns.



First the homeless camps inside the East Duwamish Greenbelt, otherwise known as The Jungle, were closed. Now, residents of the camp proposed as an alternative by city officials say it’s being closed, too.


City outreach workers traveled to the camp Friday, going from one tent to another to inform people it will be closed for health and public-safety hazards, residents said. A cleanup of the camp is scheduled for March 7.


Residents of the camp Sunday met with supporters to discuss how to keep the camp open.




What the campers want is an opportunity to build a community, said Reavy Washington, who has lived at the Sodo camp for several months.


Most Read Stories

Unlimited Digital Access. $1 for 4 weeks.

“We have problems, but they’re the same ones that every other camp has,” he said. “And we can handle all of them if we got enough room and time from the city.”


The move to close the camp comes on the heels of a pair of recent arrests over complaints that three underage girls were sexually exploited and raped there. Several of the camp residents said they were unaware that the teen at the center of the case was underage.


Called “The Field” by its residents, the camp is located on a sliver of state-owned land near the intersection of Royal Brougham Way South and Airport Way South.


In August 2016, as outreach workers began encouraging people to leave encampments inside and adjacent to The Jungle, city officials obtained a permit from the state Department of Transportation to use the field as a transition site.


Seattle officials said at the time it would be used as a stopgap solution, while officials worked on plans to develop more permanent housing options. Several trash Dumpsters and portable toilets were delivered to the camp after the closure of last encampments inside the Jungle.


Six months later, nearly 50 to 60 people live at the Sodo camp inside tents and other makeshift shelters, residents said.


A spokesperson for the department that manages the city’s homeless encampments confirmed Monday that the camp will be closed for “growing criminal activity and public health hazards” impacting both the camp and the area surrounding surrounding it.


In the months since it was okayed by the city, the camp has become infested with rodents, said spokeswoman Julie Moore in an emailed statement. A series of fires at the camp have also raised concerns about the camp, she said.


But several campers said that the city has ignored previous requests for fire extinguishers and help fighting the rodent problem.


City council hopeful Jon Grant, who along  with several other volunteers has helped campers remove garbage and debris, said that those concerns won’t be solved by closing the camp.




“You’re not going to alleviate public safety issues by dispersing vulnerable people throughout the city,” he said Sunday.


City officials said outreach workers from the Union Gospel Mission will continue to offer those still living at the camp services and shelter until its scheduled closure.



Politics were a relative no-show at Oscars ceremony - Chicago Tribune




The political sandstorm many expected from Sunday's Academy Awards never materialized.

Was everyone simply exhausted by the long awards-show trail leading to the Oscars? Case in point: The brilliant and deserving Mahershala Ali, best supporting actor winner for "Moonlight."



Perhaps on the advice of his agent or his inner career compass, Ali declined to reprise his Screen Actors Guild acceptance speech from a few weeks back, in which he noted his religion (he's a Muslim) and the recent Trump administration initiatives that many view as deeply unfriendly and, yes, un-American, regarding travel bans and other policies Hollywood detests.

MOST READ ENTERTAINMENT NEWS THIS HOUR


The political speech-making came and went, on a surprisingly low level, throughout the 89th Oscars presentation. Mostly the jabs at our current, controversial president provided emcee Jimmy Kimmel (he's good; funny; dry; a nice ear for pacing; have him back, I say) with solid material all evening. Nothing too edgy, really. The mean tweets lifted from his own talk show worked well enough. The Mel Gibson needling proved shrewd and effective.

The movies of color ("Moonlight,"  "Hidden Figures," "Fences") contended with the big movie of pallor ("La La Land"). In that regard, the Oscars really were like America today. 

A handful of winners found their methods in reminding viewers of America's fierce culture war. "Zootopia," winner of the best animated feature, provoked co-director Richard Moore to remind us that the movie was about racial profiling, allegorically speaking, and that "tolerance" will always crush "fear."

Oscar-winning actor Mark Rylance presented an award and slipped in a lovely little line about opposition, political or otherwise, and its special urgency at this particular moment in American democracy. Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs made mention of the increased "diversity" and "inclusiveness" among the academy voting ranks.



But the strongest, clearest, loudest voice of political dissent came from an Oscar winner who declined to appear in person.


From Iran, writer-director Asgar Farhadi won the foreign-language film prize for "The Salesman." Earlier this week he and his fellow foreign-language nominees signed a joint letter of protest, following the Trump administration's travel ban targeting seven majority-Muslim nations.

Farhadi's Oscar, his second, was accepted by Iranian astronaut Anousheh Ansari, who read Farhadi's statement.

“I'm sorry I'm not with you tonight. My absence is out of respect for the people of my country and those of other six nations who have been disrespected by the inhumane law that bans entry of immigrants to the U.S.” Firouz Naderi, a former NASA director, joined Ansari on stage at the Dolby Theatre.

“Dividing the world into `us' and `enemies' categories creates fear,” Ansari read from Farhadi's statement. The movies create empathy, in Farhadi's words, “between us and others, an empathy that we need today.”

RELATED STORIES:

'Moonlight' wins best picture after 'La La Land' presented award in error 

Oscars 2017: Complete list of winners 

Denzel Washington 'marries' Gary from Chicago and girlfriend at the Oscars

Stars wear blue ribbons on Oscars red carpet to support ACLU

Justin Timberlake opens Oscars with 'Can't Stop the Feeling!' from 'Trolls' 

'Moana' star Auli'i Cravalho gets hit in the head while performing 'How Far I'll Go'

Iran's Asghar Farhadi, absent at Oscars, pleads for empathy in win for 'The Salesman'

 


Sunday, February 26, 2017

Botched Zika testing at DC public health lab was a failure of 'basic arithmetic' - Washington Post


When Anthony Tran took over the District’s public health lab late last year, he had a feeling something was wrong with its testing for the Zika virus. He had just come from the public health lab in New York City, where technicians had been finding markers for Zika in the blood of arriving travelers almost every day. In the smaller, but still international, city of Washington, the same test was negative — every time.

Soon, U.S. health officials joined in Tran’s concern: Samples supplied by the federal government of the frightening, mosquito-borne virus that were tested in the lab as a control were appearing as if they contained no virus.

“I knew then that something was tremendously wrong,” Tran said late last week in an interview. He halted testing, and with help from analysts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, traced the problem to a mistake that any high school chemistry student could understand.

There were two types of solution the District could have purchased to conduct a phase of the test. One bottle came marked with a “D,” for diluted, and the other with a “U”, for undiluted. D.C. lab workers had purchased the diluted version, Tran said, and then mistakenly watered it down as if it was the more concentrated one, weakening the ability to detect for Zika.

For a public health lab to commit such an error once would be an embarrassment in the high-stakes testing of Zika, which has potentially devastating consequences for pregnant women, scientists and federal health officials say. That the District lab — which is also a first line of defense in screening bioterrorism threats — repeated the mistake daily, and without anyone catching it for more than six months, amounts to a more systemic and worrisome failure, experts said.

Jenifer Smith, director of the D.C. Forensic Sciences Department. (Sarah L. Voisin/The Washington Post)

Interviews and public documents show that the debacle unfolded over a period of months last year in which the District lab was in a state of turmoil — understaffed, lacking permanent leadership, spread thin on competing projects, and relying on new employees to test for the emerging public health threat in Zika.

“A relatively inexperienced staff and a lack of leadership — that’s a bad combination,” said Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases for the Association of Public Health Laboratories, which works to safeguard the integrity of public health labs nationwide. “The positive here is that the lab does have new leadership and he caught the error quickly, even though the situation is already really, very unfortunate.”

Since D.C. officials announced the error on Feb. 9, public health officials in a network of nearly 50 labs studying Zika have questioned how it could have gone so wrong. It was the only jurisdiction in the country to have mishandled the testing.

In the District, the mishap has shaken public confidence in Zika testing and, attorneys say, could result in millions of dollars in legal claims. And all of that may pale in comparison to the effects that the botched tests may have on a handful of D.C. families.

At least nine pregnant women in the nation’s capital were caught in the faulty testing between July and December of last year, D.C. officials said Thursday. The women were told they did not have Zika when in fact new testing by a CDC lab in Colorado shows that the women did have antibodies that could signal the presence of the virus. Follow-up tests on eight have been inconclusive and one has been confirmed as having a Zika infection.

District officials say they do not know how far along any of the women were in their pregnancies when they were wrongly told they were healthy. The District also does not know if any of the women have since given birth.

Zika is primarily transmitted through the bite of an infected mosquito but it can also be passed through sex, even if the infected person shows no symptoms.

Public health officials say they have relayed the new test results to the women’s health care providers, and they are girding for the number of new Zika patients to rise as retesting is completed for the final third of the 300 pregnant women the District says were inaccurately tested.

According to a study in December, about 6 percent of pregnant women believed to be infected with Zika in the United States had a baby or fetus with at least one birth defect related to the viral infection last year. Most suffered from severe microcephaly, characterized by abnormally small head size and, often, an underdeveloped brain.

But babies infected with Zika are not always obvious. Some problems stemming from infection may not show up until a year after birth or longer and can include hearing loss, irritability, difficulty swallowing, and cognitive, sensory and motor-skill difficulties.

That means the fallout in the District may not be felt for some time.

‘A mad scramble’

Tucked away in the District’s new glass-and-steel forensic sciences building, a couple of blocks south of the National Air and Space Museum, are a group of scientists who quietly toil away on some vitally important work.

At inauguration time, they test the food served at high-dollar balls for food-borne illnesses and contamination. When a suspicious, white powder is found in the District, the lab is one of the first to test the substances for biological weapons. And on more mundane days, the staff of the Public Health Laboratory Division tests water pollution in the Potomac and helps to identify influenza strains that should be included in the next year’s vaccines.

As a division of the District’s Forensic Sciences Department, the lab was rarely in the news.

By comparison, the lab’s sister division, the crime lab, had to halt DNA testing in 2015, after questions surfaced about the accuracy of its work.

The scandal forced out the department’s former director and D.C. Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) brought in Jenifer Smith, a former FBI forensics expert, to clean house and restore the lab’s reputation.

According to two officials familiar with Smith’s rebuilding plan, as well as public budget documents from the agency, Smith’s top priority early last year was restarting DNA testing at the crime lab.

In the year before it confronted Zika, the public health lab was shedding its most experienced staff — for a variety of reasons.

Former director Alpha Diallo, a native of Guinea, left to fight Ebola in Africa. The lab’s head of virology, Anicet Dahourou, and its head of microbiology, Morris Blaylock, also resigned and took jobs with the CDC in Atlanta.

In March 2016, with Zika as a looming threat, three of the lab’s six quality assurance jobs were vacant.

Maurice Knuckles, who had directed the office a decade earlier, was brought back from semiretirement by Smith to run things on an interim basis, officials said.

Blaylock, reached in Atlanta, said preparing for Zika in the early months of last year with a thin staff was “a mad scramble.”

The District wanted to join dozens of states that were applying to the CDC for the authority to conduct their own Zika tests instead of shipping them off to the federal agency. To apply, the lab was sent a panel of blind tests by the CDC and had to replicate positive and negative results achieved at a federal lab.

The D.C. health lab successfully did so and got permission in late May to begin its own Zika testing program, Tran said.

Smith said the lab hired four people to conduct the tests and trained them for weeks before Zika testing was launched on July 14.

Part of the preparation process involved setting up quality controls, testing procedures and what Tran described as a small “manufacturing plant” of solutions and coatings to conduct the tests.

In an interview, Smith and Tran said it was unclear if the lab employees had used the appropriate dilution in the spring when the lab passed the CDC test.

But Tran said that it is now clear that by July, workers had begun the lab’s Zika testing with an over-diluted solution.

It was not caught earlier, Tran said, because even with a weakened solution, daily control tests still showed positive results, at least, until a final batch was mixed late last year.

Blaylock said the loss of the lab’s virology director was a major gap, and any sustained campaign of virus testing would have exposed weaknesses in the team’s staffing.

“We could deal with an emergency response, we could manage it for a short time, but anything long-term, it was going to wear down that team because it was so short-staffed,” he said. “I know they were trying to get personnel on board, I do know that was the primary challenge.”

Smith dismissed the idea that the botched tests were the result of a newly hired staff or lack of seasoned leaders in key positions. “This is not an issue of staffing,” she said.

‘Something’s wrong’

The faulty solution wasn’t the failure point that Tran noticed in the District’s Zika testing procedures when he joined the lab late last fall.

Concerned about the high number of negative results, Tran began double-checking the team’s math and found an error, he said. Lab workers had fumbled a formula to calculate test results, skewing some inconclusive ones toward negative results.

“I started to investigate and the first thing I found was a really, a quite basic arithmetic error,” he said.

That discovery led Tran to stop the testing and recalculate the score for the tests done since July.

None of the recalculations resulted in a shift to a clearly positive result, he said. Tran was prepared to resume testing in the lab when a new problem developed with the daily control tests: “Now, we were getting no reaction through the plates and I said, ‘Something’s wrong. . . . We need to do a deep dig and figure out what’s wrong.’ ”

On a conference call with the CDC’s Zika experts in December, Tran was stumped. The analysts had gone over all the other complicated calibrations and procedures and everything seemed right. Then one asked a basic question. What type of solution had the District purchased?

Tran had never thought to check. “That was huge,” he said. “The dilution factor was a problem since the day we began.”

Smith said that no one involved in the mistake still works at the lab, but she declined to say how many employees were affected or if they resigned under pressure. Bowser last week said no one had been fired.

Smith said she thought the District’s trouble would someday be held up as an example of something more than a mistake.

“We are going to learn from this; the field of science will advance,” Smith said. “This is a situation where you had positive controls working, but the test is at a level where it gave a different result. . . . It’s a great example in the grayness of the world we work in. . . . This is not the instant pregnancy test, these are more complicated tests.”

Tran said he knew the lab would attract intense scrutiny over the mistake but never hesitated to go public.

“I knew what was going to be happening, but there was no other decision for me to make,” he said. “You need to give the best care because there’s no cure for this.”

Staff writer Lena H. Sun and researcher Jennifer Jenkins contributed to this report.

Remove politics from the drawing of political districts (2 letters) - The Denver Post


Hand holding placard with empty space for text, swinging board

Photo illustration by The Denver Post; images by Thinkstock


Re: “Gerrymandering is the biggest obstacle to American democracy,” Feb. 18 Brian Klaas column. 


Thank you for giving prime space on Sunday to Brian Klaas’ op-ed on the scourge of gerrymandering.


At his last news conference, President Barack Obama said there is no “silver bullet” to break this country’s political stalemate. But some bullets are more important than others. Election reform and redistricting are the bullet that can make all the difference. On one hand, we should be making it easier, not harder, for people to vote. At the same time, we should be insuring that a person’s vote counts for something. That’s where competition comes in.


We need professional, non-partisan election commissions to oversee the drawing of district lines at federal, state and local levels. The objective: to create districts that, to the greatest extent possible, are competitive between and among political parties. Competition fosters debate; debate fosters a healthy democracy.


Iowa, California, Arizona, Hawaii, Iowa, Washington, Idaho and New Jersey have created non-partisan election commissions. Colorado could do the same. But where are the Republican and Democratic legislators with the courage to move on this important issue?


Allan Ferguson, Denver



I want to thank you for running Brian Klaas’ column on gerrymandering. This is truly the issue of our time. Because of gerrymandering and the subsequent hardening of the political extremes, we are suffering through a period where Americans look at others as not just wrong, but as un-American. We have lost the ability to get along — we don’t have to now!


I have long thought that there needs to be a congressional reform amendment to the Constitution that reforms Congress to eliminate gerrymandered districts and limit the time that individuals can serve. While we look to the president to lead, presidents really have little power to control the fashioning of the laws of the land. This is what Congress does, and since they do not cooperate or work together, they do it very poorly. We deserve better.


Jeff Lormand, Wheat Ridge


Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.


Warren Buffett sticks to business, avoids politics in annual letter - Chicago Tribune




Billionaire investor Warren Buffett reiterated his rosy long-term outlook for the U.S. economy and his distaste for high Wall Street fees in his annual letter to Berkshire Hathaway shareholders that always draws a big audience.

The letter released Saturday also describes the performance of the more than 90 companies that Berkshire owns. But aside from that, Buffett largely emphasized points he's made in the past.


Buffett will likely address other topics during a three-hour television appearance Monday on CNBC, but he still may leave some people wanting more.

Here are some highlights of what Berkshire's 86-year-old chairman and CEO did say, and some of the top things investors wish he had addressed:


ROSY OUTLOOK

While reiterating his long-term outlook for a prosperous America, Buffett mostly steered clear of politics this year.

"I'll repeat what I've both said in the past and expect to say in future years: Babies born in America today are the luckiest crop in history," wrote Buffett, who has said he thinks the economy will be OK under President Donald Trump. Buffett is a longtime Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in last year's campaign.

Without mentioning Trump's immigration policies, Buffett did note that "a tide of talented and ambitious immigrants" played a significant role in the country's prosperity.



FEE FORTUNES

Buffett used the letter to again explain the advantages of low-cost index funds. He said he estimates that wealthy investors who use high-priced advisers have wasted more than $100 billion over the past decade.

"The bottom line: When trillions of dollars are managed by Wall Streeters charging high fees, it will usually be the managers who reap outsized profits, not the clients," Buffett wrote. "Both large and small investors should stick with low-cost index funds."

And it can be extremely difficult for investors to determine whether a money manager has the rare ability to outperform the stock market. So Buffett said most investors are better off not trying.

"The problem simply is that the great majority of managers who attempt to over-perform will fail. The probability is also very high that the person soliciting your funds will not be the exception who does well," Buffett wrote.

INVESTING INSIGHT:

Investment manager Cole Smead said he felt that Buffett spent too much of the letter extolling Berkshire's virtues instead of talking about how he'll approach investing the company's $86 billion cash or what went wrong with the failed $143 billion bid for Unilever that Berkshire took part in with 3G Capital.

Smead said Buffett and his investing partner, 93-year-old Charlie Munger, seem concerned about their legacies and how Berkshire is perceived.

"This letter was more about Warren and Charlie's epitaph even more so than prior letters," said Smead, who is with Seattle-based Smead Capital Management.

Smead said he wishes Buffett had devoted more of the letter to discussing the current investment environment. Even though Buffett won't discuss what he might buy, Smead said he could have talked more about what he doesn't like in the market today.

AVOIDING AIRLINES:

Buffett raised eyebrows last fall when he invested more than $9 billion in airline stocks after years of urging investors to stay away from the airline sector.

Berkshire is now one of the biggest shareholders in American Airlines, Delta Air Lines, United Continental and Southwest, but he has offered little explanation for his change of heart other than to say airlines are better businesses after all the consolidation in the industry.

But back in 2008, Buffett used his letter to label airlines as the worst kind of business because they grow rapidly and require significant investments to grow but earn little.

"Think airlines. Here a durable competitive advantage has proven elusive ever since the days of the Wright Brothers," Buffett wrote. "Indeed, if a farsighted capitalist had been present at Kitty Hawk, he would have done his successors a huge favor by shooting Orville down."

Mengintip Keindahan Shincheng, Atlantis dari Timur yang Bikin Tercengang





Pernah mendengar cerita tentang “Atlantis dari Timur”? Jika kamu beranggapan bahwa itu hanyalah mitos serupa seperti yang digambarkan oleh Plato, maka salah besar. Karena sejatinya panorama keindahan kota yang tenggelam tersebut tidak hanya ada dalam catatan. Shincheng adalah bukti nyata adanya Atlantis di luar buku Timaeus dan Critias yang digarap oleh Plato yang hanya diilustrasikan untuk menggambarkan teori politik.


Sungguh, Shincheng sama sekali tidak ada kaitannya dengan soal politik yang disinggung-singgung beberapa tokoh dunia. Shincheng murni keindahan yang ingin diabadikan. Seperti apa sebenarnya keindahan panorama yang kerap dikaitkan dengan Atlantis yang hilang tersebut? Berikut kita intip betapa menakjubkan peninggalan yang dibuat oleh dinasti kuno Tiongkok tersebut.


Kota bawah air yang kerap dikaitkan dengan Atlantis


Ada satu tempat di dunia ini yang kerap dikaitkan dengan Atlantis yang menghilang tersebut. Adalah Shincheng, kota bawah laut yang berada di perairan Tiongkok yang begitu indah. Memang tidak ada teori ilmiah yang menjelaskan bahwa Shincheng merupakan lokasi Atlantis yang hilang.


Atlantis dari Timur [image source]
Lokasi Atlantis yang ada dalam catatan Plato juga sangat berjauhan dari Tiongkok. Adanya kaitan antara keduanya lebih pada panorama Shinchen yang luar biasa. Hal itu yang membuat kota ini dijuluki sebagai “Atlantis dari Timur”.


Shincheng merupakan hasil megaproyek


Orang-orang memang kerap membicarakan keberadaan Atlantis selama zaman klasik. Namun, sebagian menganggapnya sebagai lelucon. Dan pada abad pertengahan, kisah itu makin menghilang. Setelah era modern, cerita ini mulai banyak membuat orang tertarik.


shincheng mega proyek [image source]
Sebagai Atlantis dari Timur, Shincheng tentu juga memiliki kisah tersendiri. Kabarnya, kota ini memang sengaja ditenggelamkan pada tahun 1959 untuk membuat sebuah bendungan dan juga stasiun tenaga air. Setidaknya, ada 300 ribu orang yang direlokasi untuk membuat megaproyek tersebut.


Merupakan kota yang dibangun sejak dinasti Ming dan Qing


Tak bisa ditampik bahwa apa yang ditulis Plato banyak mempengaruhi literatur modern. Pasti kita tak asing dengan film, buku bahkan komik yang bertemakan Atlantis. Mungkin akan lebih sempurna jika kita melihat ekspedisi foto bawah laut yang terdiri dari 265 belokan dari Shincheng.


ukiran naga kota shinceng [image source]
Sementara dinding kota banyak dihiasi dengan batu berukir gambar naga yang menakjubkan, singa yang gagah sampai phonix yang begitu elegan. Maka jangan heran dengan pemandangan tersebut, sebab kota Shincheng dibangun sejak dinasti Ming dan Qing yang memerintah pada tahun 1368 sampai 1912.


Alasan menenggelamkan kota Shincheng


Bisa jadi Shincheng merupakan kota warisan yang begitu melegenda. Tentu banyak pertanyaan mengenai, “mengapa kota yang mengagumkan tersebut justru ditenggelamkan?” sama sekali tidak ada niat buruk dari misi tersebut.


Shincheng yang mengagumkan [image source]
Meski saat ini sudah berada di bawah air, nyatanya kota ini masih sangat dirawat dengan baik. Air yang menenggelamkan kota ini juga sebenarnya dikhususkan untuk melindungi dari angin, hujan atau radiasi matahari. Meski belum sepenuhnya dieksplorasi, namun para wisatawan bisa menyelam di Atlantis dari timur ini pada bulan April dan November.


Hari ini Shincheng masih begitu terjaga meskipun umurnya sudah ratusan bahkan ribuan tahun. Meskipun sudah terekspos cukup banyak, namun kota kuno ini masih memiliki banyak hal yang bisa ditelusuri. Sepertinya suatu saat kita bakal dikejutkan dengan berita-berita soal Shincheng yang bakal bikin tercengang. Seperti konstruksinya yang luar biasa itu.




4 Hal Mengerikan yang Akan Terjadi Bila di Indonesia Turun Salju





Indonesia merupakan salah satu negara tropis yang hanya bisa merasakan musim hujan dan kemarau. Banyak orang Indonesia yang pasti sempat merasa iri dengan negara lain yang memiliki empat musim. Iri ingin juga menikmati indahnya musim semi atau membuat boneka salju saat musim dingin. Berbicara mengenai musim salju pernahkah kamu membayangkan apa yang terjadi bila negara kita turun salju?


Hal itu sebenarnya bukan tidak mungkin untuk terjadi. Jangankan salju, beberapa waktu yang lalu banyak daerah di Indonesia yang dihujani oleh es batu dari langit. Salju cukup mungkin terjadi di Indonesia, seperti ketika di Timur Tengah juga merasakan hal yang sama. Tapi, alih-alih menyenangkan, munculnya salju di negara kita malah bisa dibilang buruk. Ya, jelas ini adalah semacam hal yang tidak wajar dan biasanya sesuatu yang tak semestinya adalah tanda bahwa sedang terjadi hal buruk.


Lalu, apa saja akibat yang bakal terjadi kalau di Indonesia turun salju? Simak ulasannya berikut.


Umur bumi sudah tak lama lagi


Isu mengenai global warming atau pemanasan global yang semakin parah sudah bukan rahasia lagi. Hampir setiap hari para ilmuwan memberikan informasi mengenai es di kutub yang mencair atau perubahan iklim yang ekstrim di beberapa tempat di dunia. Dan bila sampai ada kejadian bahwa sejumlah negara tropis termasuk Indonesia mengalami fenomena hujan salju tentu saja itu bisa mengindikasikan kasus pemanasan global sudah sangat parah.


Ilustrasi global warming [image source]
Perubahan musim yang dialami oleh negara-negara di dunia itu salah satunya merupakan efek dari rotasi dan revolusi bumi serta kondisi bumi. Sekarang coba pikirkan ketika negara tropis seperti Indonesia kedatangan salju kira-kira apa yang telah terjadi di permukaan bumi. Tentu itu adalah salah satu bukti bahwa umur planet ini semakin pendek saja dan kemungkinan hal buruk lainnya akan terjadi semakin besar termasuk datangnya kiamat.


Beberapa daerah Indonesia akan kekurangan air


Meskipun Indonesia merupakan negara kepulauan, tapi masih ada beberapa daerahnya yang tidak memiliki banyak alternatif sumber air. Misalnya di beberapa daerah timur masih ada lokasi yang mengandalkan satu sumur air untuk persediaan masyarakat satu desa. Bayangkan apa yang terjadi bila musim dingin datang?


Ilustrasi sungai beku [image source]
Sumur-sumur atau sumber air satu-satunya tersebut seketika akan membeku. Jika hal itu terjadi kemana masyarakat dapat mencari persediaan air selanjutnya? Masalah ketersediaan air di daerah ini kemudian dapat menjadi hal yang besar. Belum lagi bila musim dingin tadi berlangsung dalam waktu yang lama. Siapa yang bisa diandalkan untuk memberikan mereka air?


Banyak masyarakat menderita hipotermia


Orang Indonesia selama ini sudah sangat terbiasa dengan cuaca sedikit panas sehingga persediaan pakaian hangat yang dimiliki pastinya juga terbatas. Saat salju turun, temperatur cuaca seketika akan turun drastis, banyak masyarakat kita yang tidak bisa menghangatkan dirinya dengan baik hingga akhirnya menderita hipotermia.


Ilustrasi hipotermia [image source]
Para penderita hipotermia sepertinya akan lebih banyak berasal dari mereka para pengemis ataupun gelandangan yang membeli baju untuk sehari-hari saja tidak mampu apalagi menyediakan baju untuk musim dingin? Kalau pun mereka mendapat pemberian baju, tempat tinggal yang ‘minimalis’ juga akan sulit menghalau hawa dingin dari luar rumah. Bila tidak cepat ditangani penderita hipotermia akan mengalami kematian.


Perekonomian negara melemah


Bagi mayoritas orang Indonesia musim dingin dan salju adalah hal yang baru dan banyak masyarakat yang belum tahu bagaimana cara menghadapinya. Bila lingkungan di luar rumah tidak mampu mereka lalui, itu tentunya akan berdampak pada perekonomian negara. Bayangkan bila banyak orang ragu berangkat menuju tempat kerja mereka karena khawatir hal buruk terjadi.


Perekonomian melemah [image source]
Tentu saja beberapa pusat perekonomian negara akan lumpuh sampai sang pegawai sudah siap kembali bekerja. Tidak hanya di sektor besar, kegiatan jual beli di pasar-pasar juga akan berhenti karena bahan makanan yang dijual kualitasnya dan kuantitas akan menurun. Nelayan mana yang sanggup melaut bila lautnya beku, dan petani mana yang bisa panen bila lahannya tertutup salju?


Ternyata salju tak hanya dapat memberikan keceriaan seperti yang biasa dilihat di tayangan televisi, tetapi malah bisa menyebabkan bencana untuk negara kita. Bagaimanapun juga kita harus tetap waspada terhadap setiap perubahan yang ada di dunia ini baik itu dari segi fenomena alam maupun fenomena sosial.




Key Republican in Health Law's Fate Hails From a State That Embraced It - New York Times



As a former chairman of the committee responsible for electing Republicans to the House, Mr. Walden knows the politics of health care as well as anyone. But in his new role, he must reconcile the political goals of his party, which is committed to repealing the 2010 health law, and the interests of his state, where officials say the law has been a big success. In 2010, nearly one in five Oregonians lacked health coverage. Today, state officials say, 95 percent of Oregonians have coverage.


Since Oregon expanded eligibility for Medicaid under the health law in 2014, enrollment has increased more than 65 percent. Nearly one-fourth of the state’s four million residents are now on Medicaid.

In Mr. Walden’s district, the percentages are even higher. In some of his rural counties, more than one-third of the people are on Medicaid. President Trump easily carried those counties. Mr. Walden won a 10th term in the fall with 72 percent of the vote and was victorious in every one of the 20 counties in his district, which is about the size of New York, New Jersey and Connecticut combined.

But that does not guarantee that voters here endorse all the policies of his party. Hospitals are among the leading supporters and beneficiaries of Affordable Care Act. Mr. Walden was a trustee of a 25-bed hospital in his hometown, Hood River.

Photo


Mr. Walden, a 10-term Republican in a decidedly blue state, listening to a question during a forum on Tuesday in Ontario, Ore.

Credit
Todd Meier for The New York Times

“We are very worried about what ‘repeal and replace’ might look like,” said David Underriner, who supervises the hospital, Providence Hood River Memorial, as Oregon’s regional chief executive for Providence Health and Services, the large Roman Catholic system that owns it.

Mr. Walden grew up on a cherry orchard, worked at radio stations owned by his family, and followed his father into the State Legislature. The political shifts that have turned all three Pacific Coast states reliably Democratic have begun to creep into a few of the conservative inland parts of Oregon. Hood River County, long known for fruit farming, windsurfing and the spectacular scenery of the Columbia River Gorge, has lately become a center for the production of surveillance drones, leading to an influx of software engineers, technology entrepreneurs and other young professionals.

Mr. Walden’s margin of victory in November in the county where he lives was just five votes — out of more than 10,590 cast.

“It’s just a little left-leaning,” Mr. Walden allowed. “It didn’t used to be that way.”

Unlike many Republicans in Congress, Mr. Walden has worked productively with Democrats. “I’m a problem solver,” he said in an interview after a town hall-style meeting here near the Idaho border. “I’m not an ideologue. I want to fix things.”

And in Oregon, some Democrats and health-law supporters are glad Mr. Walden is in his position.

“I’ve known Greg a long time,” said Andrew S. Davidson, the president and chief executive of the Oregon Association of Hospitals and Health Systems. “He is not interested in upending the progress we have made in this state.”


Representative Kurt Schrader, a Democrat whose district includes the southern suburbs of Portland and the capital, Salem, predicted Mr. Walden “will be mindful of the implications of any legislation for our state, which is leading the nation in the transformation of health care.”


Unlike Mr. Walden, Oregon has embraced the Affordable Care Act. State officials say many of the changes proposed by congressional Republicans, including a rollback of federal funds for the expansion of Medicaid, would reverse much of the progress they have made.

Oregon has a history of health care innovation that predates the Affordable Care Act. In the early 1990s, it ranked medical procedures according to their costs and benefits, and Medicaid uses this list to decide which services to cover. Under a federal waiver granted in 2012, Oregon treats Medicaid beneficiaries through 16 “coordinated care organizations,” which are governed by local citizen councils. The organizations have slowed the growth of health spending and improved the health of Medicaid beneficiaries, according to performance data collected by the state.

Even as he writes legislation to unwind the Affordable Care Act, Mr. Walden takes pride in Oregon’s success under the law.

Photo


Mr. Walden visiting onion sheds damaged by a snowstorm in Ontario. In some rural counties in his district, more than one-third of the people are on Medicaid.

Credit
Todd Meier for The New York Times

“Our state of Oregon has had quite a bit of innovation over the years,” Mr. Walden said. “We’ve got the coordinated care organizations in place that have actually brought better health care outcomes at lower cost. There are great ideas out there among the states, but right now, they have to come back and beg permission from a federal bureaucrat to be able to do much of anything innovative.”

When Mr. Walden first ran for Congress in 1998, conservatives called him too liberal. Since then, he has taken more conservative positions, and the party has moved to the right.

“Times change,” he said. “You get a terrorist attack. You have different administrations come and go. Culture changes. My bedrock principles have stayed the same. I favor more local decision-making and less Washington decision-making.”

Mr. Walden never wavered in his opposition to the Affordable Care Act. On the day the House passed the bill in March 2010, he and other Republicans stood on the Capitol balcony, before a throng of protesters, and held up signs with handwritten letters that spelled out their message: “Kill the Bill.”

A month later, on the House floor, Mr. Walden announced the goal that he hopes soon to achieve, using words that became the mantra for Republicans: “We need to repeal and replace this law.”


Over the last four years, Mr. Walden has been a genial attack dog for Republicans. As chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee, he averted a political blood bath for his party and secured the election of Republicans in many districts that voted for Hillary Clinton in the presidential election. Many of those House campaigns revolved around attacks on the health law that he is now charged with replacing.

Oregon tried to run its own health insurance exchange, but had a disastrous experience and decided, after a year, to use the federal website, HealthCare.gov. The state has a competitive insurance market, but consumers have still seen substantial increases in prices, with the average premium for a popular benchmark plan on the exchange rising 27 percent this year and more than 20 percent last year, according to the federal government. (Subsidies cushion the impact for most consumers.)

“Medicaid did better than expected, and subsidized commercial insurance did worse,” said Dennis E. Burke, the president of the Good Shepherd Health Care System in Hermiston, Ore. “We have seen steep increases in premiums for commercial insurers, and as a result healthy people have dropped out.”

People newly covered under the health law “proudly present an insurance card,” Mr. Burke said, but in many cases their plans have high deductibles, and the hospital has difficulty collecting the patient’s share of the bill.

But Mr. Burke is not so quick as his congressman, Mr. Walden, to seek repeal.

“I think it could be fixed,” Mr. Burke said. “We need more of a retooling.”

Continue reading the main story