Hannity Obamacare Attack Non-factual

Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005
Fair & Balanced graphic used in 2005 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Hannity Obamacare Attack Non-factual

 

Lies, Damned Lies, and Fox News – NYTimes.com

 

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/lies-damned-lies-and-fox-news/?_r=0

 

The other day Sean Hannity featured some Real Americans telling tales of how they have been hurt by Obamacare. So Eric Stern, who used to work for Brian Schweitzer, had a bright idea: he actually called Hannity’s guests, to get the details.

 

Sure enough, the businessman who claimed that Obamacare was driving up his costs, forcing him to lay off workers, only has four employees — meaning that Obamacare has no effect whatsoever on his business. The two families complaining about soaring premiums haven’t actually checked out what’s on offer, and Stern estimates that they would in fact see major savings.

 

You have to wonder about the mindset of people who go on national TV to complain about how they’re suffering from a program based on nothing but what they think they heard somewhere. You might also wonder about what kind of alleged news show features such people without any check on their bona fides. But then again, consider the network.

 

via Lies, Damned Lies, and Fox News – NYTimes.com.

 

I’m kinda’ in the same boat here with Paul Krugman. A major television network does three interviews with couples explaining that Obamacare costs more than what they had before without any actual knowledge of what their costs would be. An analysis of what they said and later interviews convincingly suggests that all of them would save money under the program. Someone is falling down on the job here.

 

Doesn’t the concept of a “news” imply knowledge? .. at least a little knowledge?

 

As a matter of business ethics, it’s very similar to skipping interviewing actual participants in an event because you don’t want to drive that far. Why do your job when it’s hard? Why work up intelligent news coverage when half-done and half-baked with do?

 

In short, this is a spectacular ethics failure. Interviewing people who don’t know anything about an important subject and acting as if what they are saying is factual is unethical unless your intent is to purely mislead.

 

James Pilant

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, The Secular Jurist.

 

http://thesecularjurist.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/fox-news-obamacare-victims-werent-at-all-victimized-by-obamacare/

 

A recent Obamacare special on Fox News’ Hannity illuminated the
network’s political bias, pattern of misinformation, and questionable
use of anecdotal evidence, brought to light when a former adviser to
Montana’s governor fact-checked the special and found that not one of
the show’s guests–who lamented the horrors of the Affordable Care Act
(ACA) on air–had directly suffered from the law or even visited the
insurance exchange. Hannity’s reliance on guests who condemned Obamacare
due to existing political bias demonstrates Fox News’ habit of
misinforming on the ACA and raises serious questions about the
credibility of other guests that have recounted the “consequences” of
the law.

 

Emily Yoffe Needs Advice

Rape
Rape (Photo credit: Valeri Pizhanski)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Emily Yoffe Needs Advice

I believe you can write a column and strongly recommend that women be careful about drinking too much while still holding men accountable for their behavior. Ms. Yoffe wrote a column discouraging women from over indulging but did not hold men accountable. That’s not acceptable. She said she did hold them accountable but I did not get that from her writing, if you did please comment. 

Is this a business ethics problem. Yes.

Giving people advice is a serious business. Implying that female drinking puts too much temptation out there is different than saying taking precautions is wise. The difference is where you place the responsibility. The responsibility is always on the perpetrator not the victim.

 

James Pilant

 

Emily Yoffe, advice columnist, blames college women for Rape Culture

 

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/10/18/emily-yoffe-college-drinking-rape/

 

Okay, Emily Yoffe–obviously alcohol makes you randy and more aggressive, no matter your gender. And obviously college-aged women invariably act like Lindsey Lohan when they consume too much of it, and, worse yet, can be unwittingly drinking a mixed drink full of date rape drugs. However, to somehow suggest that their consumption of alcohol creates a more rape permissive environment and only seeks to embolden potential rapists is, well, like saying women should be raped for wearing provocative clothing. Furthermore, a woman can be discussing her menstrual cycle while drinking O Doul’s in a beekeepers uniform, and college dudes will still try to rape her. As we all know, rape is purely about dominance. The introduction of alcohol, although certainly offering rapists a golden ticket, is by no means the fault of the woman or somehow the only invitation to rape. And this is coming from a guy, Emily Yoffe.

 

via Emily Yoffe, advice columnist, blames college women for Rape Culture.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Yes Means Yes.

 

http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2013/10/16/emily-yoffe-a-further-catalog-of-ways-she-is-wrong/

Yoffe is wrong, as her Slate colleague Amanda Hess, tells us, because you don’t solve a structural problem with a personal self-help solution. We didn’t deal with drunk driving in this country by telling people, “hey, you can’t control drunk drivers, so minimize driving when the bars are closing!” We dealt with it by a combination of a massive public awareness campaign, and imposing real accountability- not just jail sentences, but more prosaically, license suspensions. Drunk driving costs the drunk drivers something now, and it didn’t three decades ago. We didn’t end drunk driving deaths, but we knocked them down a lot.

 Yoffe is wrong because rapists are not weather systems. I mentioned this earlier today, and I’ve written about it before. The implicit model of rapists in her piece is one of an unthinking phenomena, one that does not respond to stimulus, that therefore we can’t do anything about but get out of the way. There’s a pernicious undercurrent to this thinking in many areas, from forest fires to global climate change – but for a moment, let’s just accept that there are some things we can’t prevent or deter. All we can do it look out for them, avoid encountering them, and minimize the damage when they occur. Yoffe, and many others, treat rape like this. That’s wrong. Often, they start from the proposition that rapists are bad people who don’t misunderstand, but rather rape because they want to. That’s true. But they take the wrong lesson from the research that shows us that. They infer that the rapists are irrational and can’t be influenced, when the Predator Theory research indicates just the opposite: that they do, in fact, respond to stimulus, by choosing the tactics that are least likely to get them caught. I’ve seen it in small, tightly-knit communities, too. When they have enough victims report and can no longer convince people of narratives about crazy victims, misunderstandings or one-time poor judgment, they move on to new communities where they can get a fresh shot at bullshitting their way through their victims’ reports. Since we know that they use the tactics that work and respond rationally to stimulus, we know that they are not like weather systems and we should discard that model.

 

 

 

It’s Called Justice!

Penn State College of Engineering
Penn State College of Engineering (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

It’s Called Justice!

 

This is what happens when a university covers up crime. It’s what’s supposed to happen. It’s not an anomaly except in the sense that so often it does not.

 

Should they have had to pay this money and fire those people?

 

Yes.

 

How do you get justice without penalty? How do you get people to not aid and abet in the crimes of others if there are not penalties? How do you get people from sweeping criminal conduct under the rug if it threatens the institutions reputation if the penalties for not sweeping don’t do as much damage?

 

What’s scary is how seldom justice happens. This time, people got fired. This time, there were criminal prosecutions and  monetary penalties.

 

Compare this to our standard international or investment bank narrative. 1. Bank does something terrible and utterly illegal. 2. Against all odds bank gets caught. 3. Bank says, “What wrongdoing?” against a background of overwhelming evidence. 4. Bank pleads guilty only after prosecution has been taken off the table. 5. Bank pays roughly 10%  of what it made by outright criminality. 6. Roughly two years pass, and the bank once again gets caught doing the same old thing or something brand new. 7. The cycle goes on.

 

It’s a pity that child abuse brings out societal anger but not house stealing or international money laundering.

 

We can bet Penn State will be keeping a careful eye on its policies in the future.

 

Can we say the same for our investment banks?

 

James Pilant

 

Sandusky fallout costs Penn State more than $50 million | News | CentreDaily.com

 

http://www.centredaily.com/2013/10/14/3837882/sandusky-fallout-costs-penn-state.html

 

The money Penn State has spent in legal and consulting fees for the Jerry Sandusky scandal has topped $50 million. Penn State’s latest update shows the university has spent $50,459,828 through July 31 for work done by more than three-dozen firms. That’s up $1,025,962 from what the university spent through June 30, according to monthly updates provided by Penn State. The potential total cost of the scandal skyrockets to more than $158 million when factoring in the dollar value of the total settlement offers with Sandusky claimants and the full NCAA fine, which the university is paying in yearly installments.

 

via Sandusky fallout costs Penn State more than $50 million | News | CentreDaily.com.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, BHA Journalism – (Their new web site).

 

http://bhsjournalism.wordpress.com/2012/11/30/penn-state-scandal-follow-up/

 

Arguably the single greatest controversy ever to mar the reputation
of a nationally recognized university, and certainly the incidence of
greatest infamy ever to involve a university’s athletic
department, the Pennsylvania State sex scandal was one which, at its
height, captivated the nation, prompting a variety of emotional
responses amongst members of the general public, the most profound of
which occurred amongst those with personal connections to the Penn State
football program. While the event is one which may have faded from the
forefront of public attention, the emotional trauma inflicted by the
scandal upon those personally involved is likely to be of a far more
enduring nature.

 

At the onset of the scandal, allegations of sexual
misconduct against assistant coach Jerry Sandusky prompted widespread
outrage, which became exponentially more vitriolic when it was
discovered that many of Sandusky’s alleged misdeeds were said to
have involved minors. The subsequent controversy which developed in the
wake of these allegations would be of a severity so great as to nearly
completely divert public attention from other major events affecting the
campus in subsequent months, most notably the removal of longtime head
coach Joe Paterno from his position within the program, just months
before his death due to a long-gestating lung cancer. Even in light of
these developments, those convinced of Sandusky’s guilt would continue
to demand that justice be served, and would see their desires
fulfilled on Tuesday, October 9, when Sandusky would plead guilty to ten
separate instances of sexual abuse involving minors, which were
conducted over a fifteen-year period.

 

Self Regulation and Chicken!

Can't claim credit for this cooking, my friend...
Can’t claim credit for this cooking, my friend Paul was responsible. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Self Regulation and Chicken!

 

Here Milton Friedman explains that business will self regulate without government regulation.

 

How do you feel about that? Ever had food poisoning? Fun?

 

I don’t get the impression that businesses aren’t willing to lose a few customers (and I mean permanent losses) if it means more profits.

 

Maybe I’m cynical or maybe I just read the news?

 

Or how about this?

 

How many people have to be killed or injured by supposedly self regulating businesses before you realize that Milton Friedman was a much better television celebrity than an economist?

 

James Pilant

 

Is our chicken safe to eat? | Business Watch | McClatchy DC

 

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/17/205695/us-urged-to-do-more-to-protect.html

 

After 317 people in 20 states got sick from eating contaminated chicken, consumer groups today urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to do a better job of inspecting poultry.

 

via Is our chicken safe to eat? | Business Watch | McClatchy DC.

 

From around the web.

 

From the web site, Eslkevin’s Blog.

 

http://eslkevin.wordpress.com/2013/10/09/government-washes-its-hands-of-meat-and-poultry-safety-inspections/

 

In 1998, USDA rolled out its pilot HACCP system. The acronym stood

 

for “Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points” but federal meat

 

inspectors, industry watchers and food advocates quickly dubbed it “Have

 

a Cup of Coffee and Pray” because it transferred oversight from the

 

government to the plant, in shocking, industry-friendly de-regulation.

 

HACCP was supposed to replace meat inspectors’ old-fashioned “poke and

 

sniff” method of visually examining carcasses by instituting advanced

 

microbiology techniques. But it is also an “honors system” in which

 

federal inspectors simply ratify that companies arefollowing their own

 

self-created system. As in “Trust us.”

 

Last week,   a coalition of food and worker safety advocates and

 

allies gathered outside the White House to protest USDA’s imminent plan

 

to implement HACCP system-wide now that it has been used at pilot

 

locations. “Instead of trained USDA inspectors, companies will police

 

themselves,” says the site of the group that organized the protest, sumofus.org.

 

“Plants will be allowed to speed up production dramatically. Chickens

 

will spend more time soaking in contaminants (including pus and feces!),

 

and poultry plants are compensating by washing them in with chlorine.”

 

China Attacks Academic Freedom

English: China, Peking
English: China, Peking (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

China Attacks Academic Freedom

Shouldn’t this case cast a little doubt on so many American Universities’ desire to build branches in China? Won’t they insist on running schools in their country they way they run the current ones?

After all, they are communists who run a dictatorship.

Yes, that is not a nice thing to say, and the fact that literally thousands of American corporations are aiding and abetting this regime is regrettable but under free market fundamentalism perfectly understandable.

I mean, does it really matter if the nation is an enemy of democracy when there is money to be made?

The business ethics implications are fascinating but largely undiscussed. For all you students out there, this is primo paper territory. If you want to write something controversial, this is where to go. Think of it, business ethics and American Investment in the Chinese economy. If I were you, I would start the story by going back to China just a few years after the Great Cultural Revolution as its economy lurched from one disaster to another. Start the story there and then begin the American involvement, investment and then sharing patents and partnerships. Compare job losses in the U.S. to job gains in China. Discuss the willingness of the Chinese government to simply not bother with environmental and worker safety problems. Put in some material on a couple of the bigger coal mine disasters. Faculty love stories. Then, when you reach the end, wonder out loud if the regime could have survived with American corporate money. I bet it’s a solid A. (If you would like to see it published once it is written, send me an e-mail – we can work something out!)

James Pilant

SHANGHAI: China’s Peking University fires professor who criticized government | Asia | McClatchy DC

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/10/18/205836/chinas-peking-university-fires.html

One of China’s top universities has notified an economics professor known for his outspoken criticism of the Chinese government that his colleagues have voted to expel him from the institution.The move against Xia Yeliang, who teaches at Peking University in Beijing, appears to reflect a crackdown on liberal academics that’s become more severe since President Xi Jinping came to power in March.Several well-known universities – including the London School of Economics and Yale and Cornell in the United States – have partnerships with Peking, though few have taken up Xia’s cause. Other institutions, including New York University and Duke University, have opened campuses in China recently or are about to amid worries that they’ll sacrifice academic freedom for the sometimes lucrative opportunity to partner with Chinese institutions.

via SHANGHAI: China’s Peking University fires professor who criticized government | Asia | McClatchy DC.

From around the web.

From the web site, educhina.

http://educhina.wordpress.com/2012/04/28/a-speech-under-the-national-flag/

April 9th, 2012, as usual, after raising the national flag and singing the anthem, the students in Huilong middle school stayed in square, listening to the weekly speech under the national flag by a selected outstanding student. They all knew it was a routine that every Monday, school had this assembly, so did most of the schools in other parts of China. And the speech, always presented by disciplined peers with excellent academic performance, was basically the same each week that about hard-working, obedient, respecting schools, teachers and parents etc. Thus, no one would pay attention to the speech but hoping the ceremony could end earlier. However, students, also teachers, soon realized today’s speech was different when they heard “we are not machine, even if we are, school should not treat us as tools to improve the enrollment rate of universities”. The senior two honorary student, Chenbo Jiang, was emotionally criticizing the school system and Chinese education. He continued: “what we are fighting for, under this education system, and what kind of people we will become?” He blamed the education deprived their dreams and turned them into indifferent people who only cared about the scores; he blamed parents blindly forced them to study all the time while neglected their true feeling and failed to give enough care and love; he blamed the teachers for pushing them so hard in doing endless homework in order to increase the enrollment rate of universities that few students actually loved and respected their teachers. Everyone stunned for a while and then students started to applaud. Some teachers were laughing and some were in shock. The school principal was so surprised because the draft of the speech had to be examined by the teachers every time before the students went up to the stage. This should not happen.

The news quickly spread out through internet with the titles like “high school student changes the speech under the national flag” or “high school student criticizes education system” and caused heated discussion among Chinese netizens in Sina microblog as well as in other social networking sites. Many people thought Chenbo Jiang was courageous to speak out the “truth” and they agreed that Chinese education was problematic. On April 20th, 2012, Nanfang People’s magazine, an influential weekly magazine of Southern China Press, published a commentary on this event. The report compares Chenbo Jiang to the boy in The Emperor’s New Clothes who points out the truth that no one wants to acknowledge.

Incredible Footage of Reusable Rocket, The Future of Space Exploration

Incredible Footage of Reusable Rocket, The Future of Space Exploration

Writing about business ethics from day to day is an excruciating experience. You are constantly bombarded by some of the worst of human behavior and lots of villains. It is similar in some sense to the cop on the beat who only sees the worst of human behavior. It pushes one toward cynicism and doubt about the human condition.

Fortunately, there are counter currents of humans at their best, humans struggling to do the right thing. Here is one of them.

Enjoy!

James Pilant

Ares I Rocket First Stage (June 2008)
Ares I Rocket First Stage (June 2008) (Photo credit: NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center)

From around the web.

From the web site, The Rocketry Blog. (And if you want to see more footage of this incredible vehicle – this web site has them. jp)

http://rocketry.wordpress.com/2013/03/10/latest-spacex-grasshopper-flight/

“SpaceX’s Grasshopper doubled its highest leap to date to rise 24 stories or 80.1 meters (262.8 feet) today, hovering for approximately 34 seconds and landing safely using closed loop thrust vector and throttle control.  Grasshopper touched down with its most accurate precision thus far on the centermost part of the launch pad.  At touchdown, the thrust to weight ratio of the vehicle was greater than one, proving a key landing algorithm for Falcon 9.  Today’s test was completed at SpaceX’s rocket development facility in McGregor, Texas.” – SpaceX

This thing is huge so pulling this off is quite incredible and SpaceX continues to push this technology in its test. I looking forward to one day seeing the Falcon 9 return this way.

Buying American Un-American?

A protest in Utah against Wal-Mart
A protest in Utah against Wal-Mart (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Buying American Un-American?

 

No, it’s not. Buying American is patriotic, puts jobs here and honors the strong work ethic that Americans have always practiced. But Jonathan Hoenig says that buying American is Un-American. Read below for the exact quote. This is what passes for intelligent analysis on a news show?

 

Up is down. Black is white. What is this? If you say it long enough and often enough, does stupidity and simple nonsense become persuasive?

 

Oh, I get the message. What Hoenig is saying is that free market fundamentalism is the actual real American belief system and all this patriotic stuff is on a lower intellectual and thought level. I get it.

 

Buy American is a business ethics idea, the idea that by rewarding your fellow countrymen for their efforts you build a better nation. Free market fundamentalism is a quasi-religious movement that says we will all be happy and prosperous once we stop trying to do the right thing and chase the money.

Well, I’m not ready to give up doing the right thing. So, I’ll buy American.

 

James Pilant

 

Why does Fox “news” hate Americans? During their Saturday “business block,” Cashin’ In guest host Eric Bolling and most of his panel did their best to do an infomercial for Walmart — and to trash the protesters who have been out there demanding higher wages for their workers. And if that wasn’t bad enough, their regular, libertarian wingnut Jonathan Hoenig called the very notion of companies like Walmart buying made in America products “un-American.”

 

I’m not going to transcribe all of this mess, but here’s some of the worst of it, where they were blaming the protesters for Walmart deciding to expand into China, and attacking labor unions, which is their favorite sport along with attacking poor people on Faux “news” on Saturday mornings. …

 

(The relevant remarks below)

 

HOENIG: I’m actually against that Eric. I think this whole notion of buy American is actually un-American. American companies should buy the lowest quality product… excuse me, the lowest price product at the highest possible quality. If they happen to be made overseas, that’s even better. It allows Americans to save money and those resources to be more deployed, and more profitable in productive ways.

From around the web.

From the web site, Buy American Challenge.

http://buyamericanchallenge.wordpress.com/2013/05/12/new-documentary-film-asks-were-willing-to-die-for-our-country-but-are-we-willing-to-buy-for-it/

Josh Miller’s new documentary is an inspirational reminder that the words “Made in USA” still matter. While Americans from Main Street to the halls of Congress struggle to cope with our sputtering economy, Miller reminds us that the answer to reclaiming a prosperous future may lie in the long-forgotten rallying cry to “Buy American.”

As Miller demonstrates in his month-long trek across the United States, a sure-fire way to create American jobs is to stimulate demand for American-made products. While conventional wisdom once told us the jobs that left our shores would never return, as is so often the case, that conventional wisdom is now being turned on its head.

 

The film shows that in many industries, companies that stuck to their American-made roots are now thriving, while firms that made the decision to off-shore are realizing the advantages of sourcing from low-wage countries like China are being eaten up by rapidly increasing wages in those countries. Once you consider the other disadvantages of off-shoring, such as increased shipping costs, higher inventory costs, and extended time to get products to market, in many industries the benefits of overseas production are now being outweighed by the costs. As a consequence, America may be primed for a serious jobs recovery.

 

In the film, Michael Araten, CEO of the toy company K’Nex, whom Miller interviews, makes the most compelling case that the U.S. is poised for job creation in the manufacturing sector and that the Buy American Movement can help facilitate it. “What I see happening is that consumers care more and more where stuff is made; businesses react to consumers,” explains Araten. “As demand picks up for [American-made products], then [businesses] will find more ways to [fill that demand].”

 

 

Virginity Testing is Just Stupid

Virginity Testing is Just Stupid

And I can add, evil as well. My half of the human race, the male half, can sometimes be alarmingly stupid, ignorant and malicious. Pushing around young girls looking for some bizarre concept of purity is the ultimate bullying and we should know better. We might do better trying to live our lives as gentlemen and worrying less about women’s sexuality.

There is no way that taking money for testing a woman’s virginity to determine her purity is ethical in business or otherwise. It never will be. Doesn’t basic business ethics imply that you are doing something useful, something beneficial in a sense? What’s useful about testing for virginity?

The Virginity Hit
The Virginity Hit (Photo credit: Wikipedia)Where would you get that out of this?

James Pilant

The invasive, sexist practice of “testing” girls’ virginity – Salon.com

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/14/the_invasive_sexist_practice_of_testing_girls_virginity/

Aside from the primary fact that a virginity test is evil and invasive, it’s not even accurate – as any teenager who’s ever gone horseback riding or read the instructions in a box of tampons could tell you. As ethicist and researcher Marie-Ève Bouthillier told the Gazette, to assume so “reduces virginity to a piece of skin.” Claire Faucher, an assistant clinical professor at the Université de Montréal, says that the World Health Organization considers virginity testing sexual violence against women. And Amnesty International calls it “sexual violence… akin to rape.”In far too many places in this world, a girl’s virginity is so highly prized her community is willing to sexually abuse her to try to confirm it. And though an official statement on the ethics of the practice may help curb it in some areas, it’s clear from its persistence in places where it’s not supposed to exist that it takes a lot more than saying it’s wrong to stop it. As Bouthillier notes, testing is easy to perpetuate “because it’s a taboo practice and it’s hidden.” That’s why more education and enlightenment and protections for girls need to be a serious priority in the healthcare profession, all over the world. Healthcare providers need …

via The invasive, sexist practice of “testing” girls’ virginity – Salon.com.

From around the web.

From the web site,

http://hatfulofhistory.wordpress.com/2013/09/22/before-melanie-phillips-was-mad-her-role-in-uncovering-the-virginity-testing-controversy/

But I thought I’d mention that before Melanie Phillips became ‘Mad Mel’, she was a social affairs journalist for The Guardian and broke the ‘virginity testing’ story for the newspaper in 1979, as seen in this archival piece from The Guardian‘s
website. The ‘virginity testing’ controversy centred around the
gynaecological examination of a South Asian women at Heathrow when she
tried to enter the country on a fiancee visa, and soon led to a
widespread investigation into racially discriminatory practices within
the UK immigration control system (you can find out more about our
research into this here).

It is bizarre how the investigative journalist who broke this story
in 1979 has become the right-wing columnist that we know (and don’t
love) today. I wonder what she would write if the ‘virginity testing’
story broke now…

Is the fine a little low?

English: Logo for the United States Occupation...
English: Logo for the United States Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Okay, what do you have to blow up to get in “real” trouble? Apparently, a lot. Maybe, it’s time that the “our” Congress set up a new set of penalties for blowing up stuff?

 

Business ethics cannot rely on word of mouth for enforcement. Some things are criminal wrongs that are punishable by jail time and fines.

 

What is the message when fifteen people are dead along with enormous property damage, and the proposed penalty is a little under $120,000? Isn’t the implication that breaking the rules is a matter of paying negligible costs?

 

Tiny fines are one way of making business ethics a topic of derision. There have to be penalties that hurt for law to be effective in its goals.

 

James Pilant

 

Fertilizer Plant That Exploded In West, Texas Faces $118,300 In Fines | ThinkProgress

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/11/2770481/west-texas-fertilizer-plant-explosion-fine/

 

West Fertilizer Co., the plant that exploded in April, killing 15 people, is facing federal fines totaling $118,300 for two dozen serious safety violations that include its lack of an emergency response plan, the Associated Press reports.

 

According to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), violations include unsafe handling and storage of anhydrous ammonia and ammonium nitrate, inadequately labeled storage tanks, failure to pressure-test replacement hoses, and the lack of respiratory protection or appropriate fire extinguishers.

 

West Fertilizer Co. has 15 days to either pay the fine or file an administrative appeal, so the penalties could be reduced. A company spokesman said its lawyers are reviewing the citations and proposed fine.

 

via Fertilizer Plant That Exploded In West, Texas Faces $118,300 In Fines | ThinkProgress.

From around the web.

From the web site,

https://ehssafetynews.wordpress.com/category/fertilizer-plant-explosion/

In a 2002 study, the CSB called on OSHA and the EPA to expand their standards to include reactive chemicals and hazards, but to date neither agency has acted on the recommendations.  During the Senate hearing, Chairman Moure-Eraso said, “Ammonium nitrate would likely have been included, if the EPA had adopted our 2002 recommendation to cover reactive chemicals under its Risk Management Program. And OSHA has not focused extensively on ammonium nitrate storage and hadn’t inspected West since 1985.”

 

 The safety message goes on to describe other serious reactive chemical accidents investigated by the CSB since its 2002 study.  These include a December 19, 2007, explosion and fire at T2 Laboratories in Jacksonville, Florida; a January 31, 2006, explosion at the Synthron chemical manufacturing facility in Morganton, North Carolina; and an April 12, 2004, toxic release at MFG Chemical in Dalton, Georgia.

 

Wall Street Journal Unaware of Illegal Foreclosures?

English: Offering subprime mortgage.
English: Offering subprime mortgage. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

 

Do you suppose that Mary Kissel has no internet access where she works? I’ve been following the story of illegal foreclosures with many web posts for more than four years. There must be hundreds if not thousands of web sites from personal stories to major news outlets detailing the crimes. And there have federal investigations culminating in the much ballyhooed settlement over the robosigning scandal.

 

I guess it makes one’s ideological prejudices more comfortable to deny unpleasant realities.

 

I’m not impressed with that quality of comment. It insults the intelligence when a supposed authority doesn’t acknowledge basic facts. I have read several times the Wall Street Journal’s preferred narrative of the housing crisis, that too many people bought “too much” house. That’s an interesting definition of a crisis surrounded by financial industry fraud and law breaking on a breath taking scale.

 

Mary Kissel’s commentary should cast doubt on the ability of the Wall Street Journal to accurately report on this subject.

 

James Pilant

 

Conservative Pundit Claims No Homeowners Have Been Wrongfully Foreclosed

 

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2013/10/11/2773181/conservative-pundit-no-wrongful-foreclosures/

 

Despite hundreds of thousands of wrongful foreclosures uncovered by investigators, Wall Street Journal editorial board member Mary Kissel claimed that “there hasn’t been a single homeowner who has been identified who was foreclosed on who shouldn’t have been foreclosed on” in a Friday appearance on Fox Business.

 

The reality of the situation is far different, with $1.4 trillion worth of mortgages being rendered legally unenforceable by the paperwork abuses that were so common during and after the subprime mortgage boom. Foreclosures based on shoddy or forged documents have become commonplace since the financial crisis. These aren’t faceless numbers, either, as reporters have indeed identified individual homeowners who were wronged.

 

Louise and Ceith Sinclair of Altadena, California might like a word with Kissel. The Sinclairs were current on their modified home loan when a company called Nationstar bought the loan from the original servicer, ignored the finalized loan modification, and foreclosed on the Sinclairs while ducking their repeated inquiries. Nationstar sold the house out from underneath them, and without a local news investigation that shamed the company into reversing the sale, it’s unclear whether the Sinclairs would have a home today.

 

via Conservative Pundit Claims No Homeowners Have Been Wrongfully Foreclosed.

From around the web.

From the web site, E Credit Daily.

http://ecreditdaily.com/2013/10/mindboggling-pundit-homeowners-wrongfully-foreclosed/

Two huge settlements with the biggest U.S. banks — dubbed the National Mortgage Settlement and the Independent Foreclosure Review — involved millions of wronged homeowners thrust into foreclosure. But that’s not enough to convince Wall Street Journal editorial board member Mary Kissel.

She was adamant about this mind-boggling claim she made during the October 11 edition of Fox Business’ Varney & Co.

From the web site, Foreclosure Help SCC.

http://foreclosurehelpscc.wordpress.com/2013/06/04/how-does-the-california-homeowner-bill-of-rights-help-you/

Did you hear the recent news about a homeowner in West Sacramento effectively using the new California Homeowner Bill of Rights to stop foreclosure on his home?  You can read about it in the Sacramento Bee: “West Sacramento homeowner uses new state law to stop foreclosure (5/23/2013)” The Fair Housing Law Project at the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley prepared a summary of the California Homeowner Bill of Rights which homeowners can use when working with their bank or servicer to apply for a loan modification.