via twitpic.com
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Olbermann: If the Tea Party wins, America loses
Now as promised a Special Comment on the madness of the Tea Party and the elections of next Tuesday.
It is as if a group of moderately talented performers has walked on stage at a comedy club on Improv night. Each hears a shout from the audience, consisting of a bizarre but just barely plausible fear or hatred or neurosis or prejudice.
And the entertainment of the evening is for each to take their thin, absurd premise, and build upon it a campaign for governor or congressman or senator. The problem is, of course, when it turns out there is no audience shouting out gags, just a cabal of corporations and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and political insider bloodsuckers like Karl Rove and Dick Armey and the Chicken Little Chorus of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.
And the instructions are not to improvise a comedy sketch, but to elect a group of unqualified, unstable individuals who will do what they are told, in exchange for money and power, and march this nation as far backward as they can get, backward to Jim Crow, or backward to the breadlines of the '30s, or backward** to hanging union organizers, or backward to the Trusts and the Robber Barons.
Result: the Tea Party. Vote backward, vote Tea Party. And if you are somehow indifferent to what is planned for next Tuesday, it is nothing short of an attempt to use Democracy to end this Democracy, to buy America wholesale and pave over the freedoms and the care we take of one another, which have combined to keep us the envy of the world.
You do not think your freedom is at stake next Tuesday?
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for senator from Nevada, Sharron Angle, compared rape to, quoting, "a lemon situation in lemonade." She would deny an abortion even to a teenaged girl who had been raped by her own father.
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate to be the only Congressman in Delaware, Glen Urquhart, said "there is no problem that abortion can't make worse. I know good friends who are the product of rape."
Mr. Urquhart also does not believe the phrase "separation of church and state" was said by Thomas Jefferson.
He thinks it was Hitler: "The next time your liberal friends ask you about the separation of church and state, ask them why they are Nazis."
Advertisement | ad infoThe Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Ohio 9th, Rich Iott, not only ran around in a Nazi uniform celebrating their military tactics, but implies he is a Veteran and as late as this March listed his occupation as "soldier" even though the volunteer militia to which he belongs has never been called, will never be called, to any active service, in the 29 years in which he has belonged to it.
It's more than just dress-up. They mean business - literally. The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate for New Jersey's 3rd House seat, Jon Runyan, defended corporate tax loopholes: "Loopholes are there for a reason. They are to avoid people from really having to pay too many taxes."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for the Senate in West Virginia, John Raese, explained, "I made **my** money the old-fashioned way, I inherited it. I think that's a great thing to do. I hope more people in this country have that opportunity as soon as we abolish inheritance tax in this country."
The inheritance tax applies only to estates larger than $3.5 million. For the 99.8 percent of Americans not affected by the estate tax, there is the minimum wage, which Mr. Raese also wants abolished. Or there is Social Security.
The Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the Indiana 9th, Todd Young, says "Social Security, as so many of you know is a Ponzi scheme."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 8th, Reid Ribble, disagrees. Social Security "is, in fact, a Ponzi scheme."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Arizona 8th, Jesse Kelly, wants to resurrect President Bush's scam to transform Social Security into private investment accounts so the government can force you to spend part of your paycheck on Wall Street commissions, and so that market manipulators can wipe out your retirement money.
The Republican candidate in the Wisconsin 1st, Congressman Paul Ryan, has a more sophisticated plan: Personal investment Social Security, guaranteed dollar for dollar by the government. A fiscal fountain of youth, until you find out its cost: Ryan would pay for it by taxing the health insurance you get from your employer.
If you are not employed, Mrs. Angle of Nevada says unemployment benefits can neither be increased nor extended because that "has caused us to have a spoilage with our ability to go out and get a job… There are jobs that do exist. That's what we're saying, is that there are jobs."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate for Senator in Alaska, Joe Miller, says this is academic, because unemployment insurance is unconstitutional. His own wife received unemployment insurance after losing a temp job he got for her. Mr. Miller also called Medicaid unconstitutional. It proved his entire family had received Medicaid funds.
Mr. Miller also claims Social Security is unconstitutional, yet hypocritically he says it should still be paid out, and then the issue dumped into the laps of the states.
Advertisement | ad infoThe Republican-and-Tea Party candidate for Senator in Colorado, Ken Buck, would not stop at butchering just Social Security. [He said] "would a Veterans Administration hospital that is run by the private sector be better run then by the public sector? In my view, yes."
The Tea Party-and-Republican candidate in the Pennsylvania 4th, Keith Rothfus, has promised to overturn anything the Supreme Court decides, with which he disagrees: "Congress's ultimate weapon is funding. If the Supreme Court rules you have to do something, we'll just take away funding for it."
Back in Nevada Mrs. Angle decries health care - not reform, but health care itself. "Everything that they want to throw at us now is covered under 'autism'," she said. As to educating those children Mrs. Angle won't pay for, Mr. Buck of Colorado, waxes nostalgic: "In the 1950's, we had the best schools in the world, and the United States government decided to get more involved in federal education…well, since, we've made education worse, we're gonna even get more involved."
In Ken Buck's America of 1957, fewer than one in five Black children graduated high school. Fewer than half of white children did. To the Tea-Party-and-Republican-candidate in the California 11th, David Harmer, Mr. Buck is a wild-eyed liberal. Mr. Harmer once advocated eliminating public schools altogether, and return education in this country to where it was before 1876: "People acting in a free market found a variety of ways to pay for a variety of schools serving a variety of students, all without central command or control." And without girls, blacks, or even the slightest chance you could go to college.
via msnbc.msn.com
How Candy and Halloween Became Best Friends - Food - The Atlantic
Corey Ann/flickr
Editor's note: This is the first piece in a series on the history of candy in America. Check back between now and Halloween to read the remaining articles.Wherever you turn this October, candy beckons. Americans will spend an estimated $2 billion on candy during the Halloween season this year, and here's a fun fact from the California Milk Processors Board: "an average Jack-O-Lantern bucket carries about 250 pieces of candy amounting about 9,000 calories and about three pounds of sugar."
Phew. My molars are hurting just thinking about it. If treats are a temptation you hope to avoid, October is the cruelest month. And I can think of only one place in America where your Halloween composure is unlikely to be ruffled by endless quantities of cheap and glittering candies: the past.
Given the ubiquity of candy at this time of year, it is hard to imagine that 100 years ago, Halloween looked quite different from the candy debauch of today.
The biggest difference was trick-or-treating. This seemingly timeless custom is actually a quite recent American invention. The ritual of costumes, doorbell-ringing, and expectation of booty appeared for the first time in different locations throughout the country in the late 1930s and early 1940s. It wasn't until the late 1940s that trick-or-treating became widespread on a national scale. And even then, candy wasn't the obvious treat.
Kids ringing a stranger's doorbell in 1948 or 1952 received all sorts of tribute: Coins, nuts, fruit, cookies, cakes, and toys were as likelyKids ringing a stranger's doorbell in 1948 or 1952 received all sorts of tribute: Coins, nuts, fruit, cookies, cakes, and toys were as likely as candy. In the 1950s, Kool-Aid and Kellogg's promoted their decisively non-candy products as trick-or-treat options, while Brach's once ran ads for chocolate-covered peanuts during the last week of October that didn't mention Halloween at all.
as candy.It took a while for candy to become what it is today, the very essence of Halloween. Going back even farther to the early decades of the century, before trick-or-treating spread across the land, candy didn't have any special role to play in Halloween observance.
For youth, and especially boys, Halloween was the one night of the year when communities generally tolerated pranking, which might range from the clever or playful to the dangerous or destructive. Mailboxes, fences, streetcars, and gravestones were popular targets. The point was to cause mischief, not to gather treats. Halloween also wasn't a gift-giving holiday, which in the case of Christmas and other early candy holidays provided the candy "hook."
While the hooligans were out wreaking havoc, the more genteel would celebrate Halloween with parties. The menus and décor for these early Halloween festivities emphasized seasonal fruits. Pumpkins and apples were especially important. Making popcorn balls and fudge was sometimes part of the festive activities, but if there was purchased candy along the lines of candy corn or jelly beans, it was an afterthought, just a something over there with the nuts and favors.
When candy makers in the 1910s and 1920s looked for ways to grow their fall sales, Halloween barely registered as a potential marketing opportunity, even though they were already using holidays as opportunities to sell seasonal confections. Christmas and Easter were big candy events, already established with their candy traditions by 1900: boxed chocolates and hard candies for Christmas, jelly eggs and molded bunnies for Easter. Lagging not far behind in importance on the candy holiday calendar was Washington's Birthday, to be celebrated with special marzipan cherries and cocoa-dusted logs. But special candies for Halloween? Not a one.
It was during the 1950s that candy made decisive inroads in dominating Halloween. The rise of trick-or-treating made the holiday the perfect occasion for marketing a product associated with children and fun. But the push from candy sellers was met with equally enthusiastic demand. Candy was easy to buy and easy to distribute, making it a convenient choice for Halloween hosts. And as the numbers of trick-or-treaters swelled, candy was also economical. Small, inexpensive candies became popular, and major candy manufacturers began making smaller candy bars or bags of candy corn.
Through the 1960s, it was still conceivable that some other treat might be offered. It wasn't until the 1970s that candy came to be seen as the only legitimate treat. And while the candy industry reaped the benefits, the immediate impetus was not brilliant marketing so much as rising fears that unwrapped or homemade Halloween treats posed risks of tampering and poisoning. Commercial wrapped candy was the only safe choice.
All of which raises the question: What was the candy industry up to during all those years before we had the license and opportunity to indulge in enormous quantities of Halloween candy? It turns out that in 1916, candy promoters did come up with an idea to launch the fall candy season and boost sales and consumption, but it wasn't Halloween. It was a new holiday invention, uniquely American in its entrepreneurial spirit: Candy Day.
This article available online at:
http://www.theatlantic.com/food/archive/2010/10/how-candy-and-halloween-becam...
via theatlantic.com
Click the image to read the full article.
Monday, October 25, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
11/2/1991: Post reporter Williams apologizes for 'innappropriate' verbal conduct
Post reporter Williams apologizes for 'innappropriate' verbal conduct
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 2, 1991; 12:01 AM
Washington Post Magazine reporter Juan Williams said yesterday that the newspaper has disciplined him for what he called "wrong" and "inappropriate" verbal conduct toward women staffers and he apologized to his colleagues.
In an open letter to the newsroom, Williams said: "It pained me to learn during the investigation that I had offended some of you. I have said so repeatedly in the last few weeks, and repeat here: some of my verbal conduct was wrong, I now know that, and I extend my sincerest apology to those whom I offended. I have committed to Post management, and I commit to you -- and to myself -- to change my ways."
Williams's letter came several hours after about 50 female employees met with Executive Editor Leonard Downie Jr. and said they objected to The Post's refusal to say how the paper had resolved allegations of verbal sexual harassment against Williams. The newspaper's management has maintained that such personnel inquiries must remain confidential.
Downie said in a letter to the staff, which was posted in the newsroom with Williams's letter last evening, that "the complaints about Juan's verbal conduct with a number of women in the newsroom were thoroughly investigated. The complaints were found to be serious, and, as Juan acknowledges, he was disciplined for his conduct and intends to apologize to women he offended." Downie declined to answer questions about his statement.
The Post disclosed the internal inquiry involving Williams, 37, in an editor's note and news story Oct. 15.
The disclosure came five days after a Williams column on The Post's op-ed page in which he said that Anita Hill had "no credible evidence" for her allegations of sexual harassment by Supreme Court nominee Clarence Thomas, but that Hill was "prompted" to make her charges by Democratic Senate staffers. The Post's personnel inquiry had begun more than two weeks earlier, but the column angered many women in the newsroom, and several came forward to say that they had also had problems with Williams. Post editors say they decided to make a public statement after WRC-TV aired a report on the controversy.
Williams returned to the newsroom Monday after working away from the office for two weeks, and the controversy seemed to have died down. But emotions began running high again Wednesday when Williams was quoted in USA Today as saying the complaints stemmed from "my attempts at being friendly" and saying "Hi. How are you? . . . Hey, did you have a date? How was your weekend?" He also said The Post had "said basically, 'Come back to work. We're sorry this happened.' "
A letter to Downie signed by 116 newsroom employees yesterday said: "We feel Juan's unrefuted false statements to the national media continue to cause anguish and professional harm to the women involved. They have also left many people inside and outside The Post with the impression that either the complaints were not serious or were not taken seriously . . . . The Post has an obligation to set the record straight by refuting such comments."
In a letter to The Post, 11 female employees, including senior reporters and editors, dismissed the notion that "the women bringing the complaints were victims of some sort of mass hysteria perpetrated by an identification with Anita Hill." They said the recent complaints were made "before the world ever heard the name 'Anita Hill.' "
In his letter, Williams, a frequent television commentator, said that "there was no suggestion that I ever engaged in offensive physical contact, or that I attempted to abuse my position at The Post, or that I discussed pornographic materials, or called women employees at home, or the like." But, he wrote, "I do not mean to belittle the inappropriateness of the verbal conduct which I have acknowledged."
Williams expressed hope that his letter "will be seen as the first step toward restoring those relationships."
Seven women said in on-the-record interviews yesterday that Williams had repeatedly made hostile and sexually explicit comments to them, in some cases over a period of several years. All of them said they believed the comments were meant to embarrass them, not an attempt to date them, and most said that Williams persisted despite their protests.
Jo Ellen Murphy, art director of the Weekend section, said that "he was obsessed with my sex life and that's all he wanted to talk to me about . . . . I raised my voice at him and said, 'Just don't talk to me again.' "
After Williams made some "hostile remarks" in late September, Murphy said, a male co-worker reported it to an editor, which triggered the personnel inquiry.
Nancy McKeon, the magazine's features editor, said she told Williams that "you've got a little problem here" after she complained about a sexual remark he made to her. Karen Tanaka, an assistant photo editor, said Williams had been "nothing but nasty to me." Deborah Needleman, the magazine's photo editor, said that when she objected to Williams's "demeaning" comments, he said: "What's wrong with a little flirting?"
In the Oct. 15 editor's note, The Post said that Downie and other top news editors "mistakenly failed to inform" Editorial Page Editor Meg Greenfield about the inquiry before Williams's column on Thomas was published. Downie said he regretted that he did not read the column before publication.
Williams, who was told about the allegations after he wrote the column but before it was published, said at the time that his view of the Thomas nomination was "completely unconnected" to the Post inquiry. He also called the allegations "absolutely false."
Downie said in his letter yesterday that "we normally keep such newsroom disciplinary matters confidential," but that "maintaining confidentiality does not mean that the seriousness of the charges is being minimized or that discipline is not being applied when warranted."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Saturday, October 23, 2010
Trees Eat Pollution Better Than Expected : Discovery News
Some common and dangerous air pollutants found in cities can be absorbed by plants at far greater rates than ever suspected.
The discovery has big implications for modeling how vegetation affects pollutants, as well as how particles in the atmosphere affect human health and global warming.
The finding comes from a fruitful and unusual collaboration of plant geneticists and atmospheric scientists. The plant scientists found the genes used by plants and the conditions under which they are activated to allow more volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to be absorbed, while the atmospheric scientists lugged equipment around the globe to verify that the plants were indeed sucking up pollutants in the real world.
"It's been hard to measure this in the real world," said Thomas Karl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research. "That's why we hauled this instrument all around the world."
Karl led the field work which involved gathering and immediately analyzing air samples in remote forests using a 200-pound, washing machine-sized mass spectrometer. He is also the lead author on a paper reporting the discovery in the Oct. 21 issue of Science Express.
"Our goal was to really be in places that were undisturbed to mimic the most natural case," said Karl. That took them to seven locations in more than six years.
Among the specific discoveries is that deciduous plants take up about a third more oxygenated VOCs -- a form of pollutant that has reacted with oxygen -- than previously thought. These oxygenated VOCs come from burning gasoline, forest and other biomass fires and are e even released by some kinds of trees.
"The trees actually clean up more than we thought," said Karl.
That's extremely useful information when trying to figure out what's happening globally. The work will be used by modelers, Karl said, working on Earth systems models which attempt to try to take into account and simulate as many processes as possible.
"This paper is very interesting to me because we want to understand the sources and the sinks" of VOC pollutants, said researcher Qi Zhang of the University of California at Davis.
Of particular interest are particles, called secondary organic aerosols (SOAs), that are created by oxygenated VOCs. These SOAs are extremely important, Zhang said, because they can serve as seeds for cloud droplets, affect the way the atmosphere holds heat and they are major cause of disease and death in urban areas.
"(SOAs) are more deadly than car accidents," Zhang told Discovery News.
Now that the plant genes for grabbing VOCs are understood, there could be a future application for them in helping to clean cities, said Chhandak Basu of the University of Northern Colorado, a co-author on the paper. He envisions a day when plants with these VOC-sucking genes line highways, or other sources of pollution, sucking the harmful compounds out of the air.
As for the unusual cross pollination that produced the discovery, it was not easy, said Brenda Thornton, of the University of Northern Colorado, who identified the plant genes at work.
"It's really difficult to get different fields working together," said Thornton. They often seemed to be speaking separate languages, she said, but they managed to bridge the gaps.
Arbor Day takes on a whole new meaning!
Eight False Things The Public “Knows” Prior To Election Day
There are a number things the public "knows [1]" as we head into the election that are just false. If people elect leaders based on false information, the things those leaders do in office will not be what the public expects or needs.
Here are eight of the biggest myths that are out there:
1) President Obama tripled the deficit.
Reality: Bush's last budget [2] had a $1.416 trillion deficit. Obama's first reduced that to $1.29 trillion [3].2) President Obama raised taxes, which hurt the economy.
Reality: Obama cut taxes [4]. 40% of the "stimulus" was wasted on tax cuts which only create debt [5], which is why it was so much less effective than it could have been.3) President Obama bailed out the banks.
Reality: While many people conflate the "stimulus" with the bank bailouts, the bank bailouts were requested by President Bush [6] and his Treasury Secretary, former Goldman Sachs CEO Henry Paulson. (Paulson also wanted the bailouts [7] to be "non-reviewable by any court or any agency.") The bailouts passed and began before the 2008 election of President Obama.4) The stimulus didn't work.
Reality: The stimulus worked, but was not enough [8]. In fact, according to the Congressional Budget Office [9], the stimulus raised employment by between 1.4 million and 3.3 million jobs.5) Businesses will hire if they get tax cuts.
Reality: A business hires the right number of employees to meet demand [10]. Having extra cash does not cause a business to hire, but a business that has a demand for what it does will find the money to hire. Businesses want customers, not tax cuts [11].6) Health care reform costs $1 trillion.
Reality: The health care reform reduces government deficits by $138 billion [12].7) Social Security is a Ponzi scheme [13], is "going broke," people live longer, fewer workers per retiree, etc.
Reality: Social Security has run a surplus since it began, has a trust fund in the trillions, is completely sound for at least 25 more years and cannot legally borrow so cannot contribute to the deficit (compare that to the military budget!) Life expectancy is only longer because fewer babies die; people who reach 65 live about the same number of years as they used to.8) Government spending takes money out of the economy.
Reality: Government is We, the People and the money it spends is on We, the People. Many people do not know that it is government that builds the roads, airports, ports, courts, schools and other things that are the soil in which business thrives. Many people think that all government spending is on "welfare" and "foreign aid" when that is only a small part of the government's budget.This stuff really matters.
If the public votes in a new Congress because a majority of voters think this one tripled the deficit, and as a result the new people follow the policies that actually tripled the deficit, the country could go broke.
If the public votes in a new Congress that rejects the idea of helping to create demand in the economy because they think it didn't work, then the new Congress could do things that cause a depression.
If the public votes in a new Congress because they think the health care reform will increase the deficit when it is actually projected to reduce the deficit, then the new Congress could repeal health care reform and thereby make the deficit worse. And on it goes.
-->Trackback URL for this post:
via ourfuture.org
Friday, October 22, 2010
I Got A Brand New Pair Of Roller Skates- You Got A Brand New Key- HP ePrint Baby
via youtube.com
Baby walkers will never look the same again.
Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz Calls for Jail Time for Corporate Crooks - DailyFinance
via dailyfinance.com
Nobel Prize Winner Joseph Stiglitz Calls for Jail Time for Corporate Crooks
http://t.co/fBGMjmQ via @AOL
Study: Dogs' Separation Anxiety May Be a Sign of Pessimism
The only time my dog's tail stops wagging is when she's asleep. She's a really happy pup, in other words — or at least I thought she was. The lead author of a new study in the journal Current Biology suggests she may have a "negative underlying emotional state."
According to researchers at the University of Bristol and University of Lincoln in the U.K., dogs that exhibit "separation-related behavior" (SRB) may be inherently pessimistic pooches. This behavior includes barking, destructive chewing and peeing and pooping when left alone. (My dog, Lola, exhibits the second one.) (More on Time.com: Why Spamming Your Friends With Cute Kitties Is Good Karma)
For the study, researchers observed 24 shelter dogs to determine which ones exhibited SRB. Next, the researchers taught the dogs that a bowl placed on one side of a room would contain food, while a bowl placed on the other side would not. After the pups had that down, the researchers placed a test bowl elsewhere in the room. Dogs that ran to that bowl expecting food were labeled "optimistic"; dogs that ignored the new bowl figuring it wouldn't contain food were labeled "pessimistic."
The authors of the study found a correlation between dogs that exhibited SRB and those that were pessimists in the bowl test. In a published interview, Mike Mendl, the study's lead author said, "Happy people are more likely to judge an ambiguous situation positively. Now it seems that this may also apply to dogs." The ambiguous situation he referred to was being left alone. Pessimistic dogs, the study says, may view this circumstance as bad and react accordingly, while optimistic dogs may not.
Back to my dog, Lola. When my husband and I first adopted her from a rescue group, we immediately bought a metal crate and began the process of "crate training," allowing her to be outside her crate only under supervision or if it was time to go for a walk to pee and poop outside. Once she got the hang of that, we left her outside her crate while we were at work. She was free to roam around our apartment all day. (More on Time.com: Photos: Animals That Can Think)
I'm not sure how much roaming she did in between all the destructive chewing. First, she destroyed her dog bed, ripping it apart and pulling out all the stuffing. Then, she chewed up a corner of our bed's box spring. Later on, she ate the wooden handles of our antique writing desk. We didn't worry too much — these were our own possessions, after all, and we wanted to give her time to adjust. Then, she chewed the windowsill. This was actually attached to our rented apartment, so it was cause for concern. But we didn't react to Lola's SRB until she took it one step further, literally chewing a hole through the hardwood floor.
After this, we decided we would keep Lola in her crate whenever no one else was home. Many people might think this is cruel, but there are a few mitigating circumstances. One, Lola loves her crate. When we're home, we leave the crate door open and she frequently saunters in there to curl up and nap, having claimed the space as her "den." Secondly, when she's in her crate, Lola is calm and sleeps almost all day. (We know this because we had a brief foray with a pet-cam during the chewing escapades.) Thirdly, we take Lola off leash in a nearby park every morning for at least an hour, so she gets lots of exercise.
But in light of this new study, might my husband and I have missed a clear sign that Lola is just a pessimistic dog? What is pessimism after all? If it's a sign of unhappiness, what accounts for the constant tail wagging? And what about our successful use of positive reinforcement? We trained Lola to shake on command by giving her a dog biscuit every time she performed. After she learned this trick, we started giving her a biscuit for shaking only occasionally. This didn't cause her to stop extending her paw for a greeting. On the contrary, every time we ask, "Can you shake, Lola?" she lifts her little white paw upward, eyes glistening in anticipation. That seems like pretty optimistic behavior to me.
More on Time.com:
Photos: Amazing Moms of the Animal Kingdom
Video: Animal Intelligence: Birds That Use Tools
Seagull Droppings in Drug Development? Why Not!
Health.com: What Does Depression Look Like?
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
10 infants dead in California whooping cough outbreak
10 infants dead in California whooping cough outbreak
From Miriam Falco, CNNSTORY HIGHLIGHTS
- California health officials say it's the worst outbreak of whooping cough in 60 years
- Nearly 6,000 confirmed or probable cases have been reported since January 1
- Vaccinations prevent the spread of the highly contagious bacterial disease
- "This is a preventable disease," says a health department spokesman
(CNN) -- Whooping cough, also known as pertussis, has claimed the 10th victim in California, in what health officials are calling the worst outbreak in 60 years.
Since the beginning of the year, 5,978 confirmed, probable and suspected cases of the disease have been reported in California.
All of the deaths occurred in infants under the age of 3 months, says Michael Sicilia, a spokesman for the California Department of Public Health. Nine were younger than 8 weeks old, which means they were too young to have been vaccinated against this highly contagious bacterial disease.
"This is a preventable disease," says Sicilia, because there is a vaccine for whooping cough to protect those coming in contact with infants, and thereby protect the infants.
However, some parents are choosing to not vaccinate their children. In other cases, previously vaccinated children and adults may have lost their immunity because the vaccine has worn off.
The vaccine "does not protect you for life," explains Alison Patti, a spokesperson for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Sicilia says California Health Department epidemiologists estimate 50 percent of the children who have gotten sick were infected by their parents or caregivers.
According to the recommended vaccine schedule for infants, newborns don't get their first pertussis vaccine until they are 2 months old, leaving them vulnerable to infection until then if the people surrounding them are infected.
"That's why the real important message is -- whether it's a mom, dad, sibling, grandfather or grandmother that comes in contact with these really young babies -- all the close contacts, including the health care professionals, need to vaccinated," says Patti. It's called the "cocooning strategy," where the newborns are protected because the older people around them have been vaccinated and protected from pertussis, and therefore won't pass it on to little babies.
Pertussis, or whooping cough, is a highly contagious disease caused by bacteria that can lead to severe upper respiratory infections. The bacteria is spread in tiny droplets when an infected person coughs or sneezes.
Initial symptoms are very similar to a cold, but a week or two later, a violent cough develops.
"If you've ever seen a child with pertussis, you won't forget it" -- that's how the American Academy of Pediatrics explains what whooping cough is on its website. The academy says a child with the disease coughs so hard and so often "until the air is gone from his/her lungs and he/she is forced to inhale with the loud 'whooping' sound that gives the disease its nickname."
The cough can last for weeks and children can cough so hard and rapidly,that blood vessels can burst and they have difficulty eating, drinking and breathing. According to the CDC, "about 1 in 5 infants with pertussis get pneumonia, and about 1 in 100 will have convulsions. In rare cases (1 in 100), pertussis can be deadly, especially in infants."
Parents and doctors can often miss the initial symptoms of pertussis in the youngest patients because they often do not have the characteristic cough with a "whoop" says Patti.
According to the National Institutes of Health, "the whoop noise is rare in patients under 6 months and in adults."
That's why parents need to be alert to symptoms in themselves as well as their children, says Patti. If there's a prolonged pause in breathing or they have trouble breathing, that's an important sign and parents should seek medical attention immediately, she explains.
"It's important to go to the doctor early on," says Patti because, "antibiotics don't help you later."
Adults usually don't have the "whoop" cough, so they may not think they have pertussis. Patti recommends if someone has a cough that doesn't go away, they should get tested for pertussis.
Sicilia points out that the pertussis vaccine isn't perfect and its protection wanes after about five years.
Health officials are urging everyone who hasn't had a pertussis vaccine in the past five years or -- doesn't remember if they had one -- to get the shot.
Jenny McCarthy should be proud.....
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)