Top 10 Reasons We Need to Defeat Chris Christie :::::: repost


 chrischristie
   By Staff writer on
Emily’slist.org
Speculation is already running rampant around the 2016 presidential race and we’ve barely had a chance to think about the upcoming 2014 midterm elections. But before those come to pass, there are a few big races in 2013 that you need to know about — including the race for governor in New Jersey. Chris Christie is running for reelection, and we don’t need to tell you that what happens in this race could have major implications for the 2016 Republican primary, not to mention the general election. This could be the year we stop Chris Christie in his tracks. He’s been a disaster as governor, especially for New Jersey women and their families.

Here are the top 10 reasons we need to defeat Chris Christie this November.

10. Chris Christie Vetoed Same-Sex Marriage:  With the tide in America turning against bigotry and discrimination, and in one of the most solidly blue states in the country, Christie vetoed a bill sent to him by both houses of the New Jersey legislature that would enshrine marriage equality into law.

9. Chris Christie Is No Friend to Workers:  Christie has built himself a reputation as one of the most anti-union governors in the country, referring to public school teachers as “thugs” and supporting a bill that would “destroy collective bargaining.”

8. Chris Christie Doesn’t Believe in Universal Pre-K:  Not only does Christie oppose government-funded preschool for every child in his state, he attacked his predecessor’s plan as “simply wrong” and called it “government babysit[ting].”

7. Chris Christie Misuses State Funds:  At a cost of $2,500 an hour, Christie used a state helicopter for personal travel. Probably not the use taxpayers had in mind.

6. Chris Christie Supports the Ryan Budget:  Paul Ryan’s proposed federal budget would end Medicare as we know it, but Christie joined ultraconservative governors like Texas’s Rick Perry, Mississippi’s Haley Barbour, and Virginia’s Bob McDonnell to tell Ryan that his budget was what “voters clearly asked for.”

5. Chris Christie Vetoed a Hike in the Minimum Wage: Just last month, Christie vetoed a bill passed by the legislature that would raise the minimum wage in New Jersey — a state with the third-highest cost of living in the nation — from $7.25 an hour to $8.50, and index it to the consumer price index so it grows with inflation. Christie proposed a smaller increase, phased in over more time, which would not be indexed.

4. Chris Christie Vetoed Equal Pay Legislation : Christie isn’t shy about much, and that includes the use of his veto pen. He vetoed three of four bills passed by the legislature designed to outlaw pay discrimination against women in the workplace and called them “senseless bureaucracy.”

3. Chris Christie Targeted Poor Families in His Budget:  It’s no surprise that Christie is a fan of Paul Ryan’s budget once you look at his own. His budget cut aid for tuition, for a center for abused children, for legal services, and for transitional aid to some of New Jersey’s neediest communities. When asked about the cuts, he said “I don’t care.”

2. Chris Christie Cut Funding to Family Planning Organizations:  Christie got out his veto pen again for a budget that would have given $7.5 million to family planning organizations in the state, including Planned Parenthood. He blocked attempts to restore the funding, even using a line-item veto specifically to target women’s health in New Jersey.

1. Chris Christie Is Proudly:  Anti-Choice Christie has declared himself against the side of women’s reproductive rights and on the side of those who would deny them, saying “I am pro-life.” We can’t trust Chris Christie, not in New Jersey, and certainly not in the White House. This November may be our best chance to stop his ambitions.

Republicans … say one thing and continute to do another on the floor of Congress


demsVrepub

just another rant …

The 113th Congress went on vacation, with fewer days worked than the people they seem to keep voting against …some Republicans call lazy

Do you wonder if $175K is a lot for about 126 days of work per year? Yes, take a deep Breath as the Peoples business is up against some deadlines as Republicans choose to keep facing off with the Democratic Party while looking childish.  President Barack H Obama Won Election2012, his 2nd term yet some conservatives in Congress act like Mitch McConnell’s statement to make PBO a one term President or that Waterloo comment are still valid least he makes the effort to shut down the government again.   Yes, breathe in slowly then slowly release your breath … be still, then repeat the process when needed as insanity in the News, Weather, Sports and Politics begins

I have to ask, since when did Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham or their small group of teabag members have control over the governing party. They certainly act like it every time they get a chance to be on cable TV.  These men, who say one thing while planning takedowns in secret rooms have tossed their title of Public Servant down the nearest sewer. Now, I wonder how we will ever pass VRA, immigration reform and other bills For Americans kept off the floor of Congress because of those poison pill amendments.  Again, how childish and how tough is it to understand the Republican Party needs to be more inclusive, though trust, respect and future votes are not seasonal or easily earned nor should they be. It makes a voter wonder, can Republicans stop flip-flopping for just a minute so Congress can get the People’s business done.  Yet, the tantrums continue. Okay, stop and take a deep breath as the talking points meme disguised as debates, votes and amendments begin on the floor of Congress.

If you listen to Republicans, they act; remember (act) like they plan to be in bipartisan mode but they have shown themselves to be less than trustworthy less than bipartisan and their votes … proof of how they actually feel cannot be denied or overlooked.

Yes, Congress has taken the time to bring issues such as Student Loan Rates Gun Safety Immigration to the floor of Congress and all connected to jobs. It is important to call your member of Congress because the Republican tactic to stall or quietly throw poison pills in amendments is happening right this very moment. I ask you to please call your member of Congress and tell them to pass a Climate Change bill, respect reproductive rights, VRA, immigration reform and pass #theAmericansJOBsACT, as all Americans need a path toward Stability not Austerity, which is what Republicans seem to keep pushing.

I want America to wake up, push back, and demand all members of Congress do the People’s business before #Midterm2014

Republicans see themselves as stewards of the purse strings in the House of Representatives and they are, but it does not give them the right to act or do what they want as if their party is governing.

#Midterm2014 will decide what kind of life we all want our next generation to navigate through

 

internship programs … a change needed in 2014?


        by McKenna Grant, USA TODAY
  11:13 a.m. EDT October 23, 2013

The magazine publisher will no longer offer students an internship program starting in 2014.

Internship programs have proven to be a touchy subject for magazine publishing giant Condé Nast in the last few years, but that will not be the case beginning next year.

Condé Nast – one of the nation’s largest magazine publishers and home to Vogue, Vanity Fair and Glamour - is stripping its internship program all together starting in 2014, according to Women’s Wear Daily.

The discontinuation comes after two lawsuits, filed by former interns, who claimed the media company failed to pay them minimum wage at their internships in 2009 and 2010.

The former interns — Lauren Ballinger (W ) and Matthew Leib (The New Yorker) — claimed in their suit they were paid less than $1 an hour. The case is still pending.

Other media companies, such as Hearst Corporation, have faced similar scrutiny regarding internship programs — long hours and insufficient payment.

In Feb. 2012, a former Harper’s Bazaar intern, Xuedan Wang, sued Hearst saying the company breached overtime and minimum wage laws.

Gawker and Fox Searchlight have also been sued for similar reasons.

All current Conde Nast interns will remain with the company through to their prearranged terms, according to WWD.

=================================================================================

Do you have an internship story to share ?

In 2013, saw an article asking if unpaid internships were possibly illegal. Well, I will say that the internship of today has gone from work in the industry you were interested in to work on the cheap by college students then work on the cheap with college credit only or maybe some pay. The fact is, some businesses use interns instead of paying an adult out of college a living wage and I have don’t know how long this has been going on, but it is and after reading the article. The idea that companies are choosing to add to our jobless by sidestepping possible living wages to folks who want to work is not just cost effective for them it is not hard to understand.

On October 30, 2013 I posted the following …

I spent some time looking for the old story in Conde Nast about ending internships and why on their website, but nothing. I have/had a subscription to subsidiaries of the magazine and still deciding if it is time to move on … not that my free access will make an impact. This intern story is not new and while it is old news, the rules keep changing. I have experience as an intern and as someone who had a few interns work for me. In my opinion, it is possible the whole idea of what an intern does, why and salary requirement needs a makeover.  In the old days, interns actually were assigned to positions that gave them a taste of what their field or degree of choice was like and when those options dried up the disbursement of internships became tied to money, 19 hours and what the department or company needed. I believe internships are important. The fact is, and unfortunately, they have definitely become a way of getting part-time or fulltime work wages for what seemingly looks like on the cheap and students are very lucky if it is tied into your degree. I know that some of our interns were ok with filing, data entry answering phones etc. because they had exams, a lot of reading while others were going into the service industry on some level. The lack of training or experience in their specific area of choice was not a big deal while getting credit; it also was a break from 20credit qtrs. or more and with lunch …well, when they actually allowed themselves to eat lunch and do some homework

 

I also feel getting kids to work on the cheap, allowing them to believe they would not only be performing duties in their field of choice then find out something different not only unable to opt out easily go somewhere else and top that off, get longer work hours little or no pay, it is just wrong.

… PointCounterPoint

who is Moncia Wehby? A Republican


  • the election results are in — and we now know who will be taking on Senator Merkley this fall.
    The Republican nominee is Monica Wehby.  

    Stand with Jeff. Donate right now!

    If you’ve saved your payment information with ActBlue Express, your donation will go through immediately:

    Express Donate: $3 per month

    Express Donate: $12 per month

    Express Donate: $25 per month

    Express Donate: $50 per month

    Or donate another amount.

    Here’s what you need to know:
    • She has been a national activist against the Affordable Care Act.  She’s called for repeal of health care reform, and she’d put the insurance companies back in charge.
    • Wehby is opposed to raising the federal minimum wage and making work pay for millions of Americans.
    • She supports restrictions on a woman’s right to choose and would support Supreme Court justices who would overturn Roe v. Wade.  And she’s won the support of some of America’s most radical anti-choice activists.
    The bottom line?  
    When asked, Wehby couldn’t name a single thing that she disagreed about with Republicans in the Senate.
    So, it’s no surprise that the Washington DC establishment and their SuperPAC pals are so enthusiastic about Monica Wehby.
    Senator Mitch McConnell, who calls himself the “guardian of gridlock,” is 100% all-in for Wehby — as are numerous Republican Senators.
    Karl Rove has raved about her in the pages of the Wall Street Journal.  And Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich are all-in, too.
    But the thing that Merkley fans should be watching closest?  Monica Wehby already has at least two SuperPACs on her side funded by wealthy out-of-state special interests.  They went to bat for her in the Republican primary — to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars — and you can bet they’ll be swinging for the fences against Senator Merkley.
    Let’s stand up for Jeff.
    Senator Merkley is a proven progressive, making real progress on fixing the filibuster, holding Wall Street accountable, fixing the housing crisis, turning the dial back on climate change, ending LGBT discrimination, standing up to the Monsanto Protection Act, and making college affordable.
    We know why the right-wing radicals and billionaires want to defeat Jeff Merkley.  The only question is: What are we going to do about it?
    Onward!
    Alex

Toxic Fashions


Sometime around the 21st  of November in 2012, Greenpeace discovered and exposed Zara as one of maybe many companies using manufacturers that have toxic chemicals in their clothing… 

On the 29th of November,  a statement of commitment from Zara’s manufacturing company to toxic-free fashion ~~ below  Clothes rack

Achieving the Zero Discharge

        Inditex‘s commitment, in connection with the use of chemical substances in the manufacturing process of its products, is reflected in its chemical policy, which establishes restrictions and prohibitions in the use of these substances.

        So far, this policy has been developed and periodically updated in conformity with the most demanding international legislation and in collaboration with the University of Santiago de Compostela (Spain). The policy regulates not only those “substances whose use is legally limited” and which, if present in the product above certain levels, could be hazardous for human health, such as: Formaldehyde, Arylamines, Phenols (PCP, TeCP), Cadmium, Lead, Chromium (VI), Nickel, Allergenic Dyes, among others; additionally, it limits the use of certain parameters not contemplated by the effective legislation, such as: Organochlorinated Compounds and Isocyanates. In order to guarantee the compliance of said policy by Inditex’s suppliers, Inditex carries out audits and regular inspections of the production processes and continuous reviews of the products.

        INDITEX Commitment to Zero Discharge

        27th November 2012

        In line with Inditex’s long-term sustainability program Inditex recognizes the urgent need for eliminating industrial releases of all hazardous chemicals (1).  According to its approach based on prevention (2) and the Precautionary Principle (3) Inditex is committed to zero discharges (4) of all hazardous chemicals from the whole lifecycle and all production procedures that are associated with the making and using of all products Inditex sells (5) by 01 January 2020. Inditex recognises that to achieve this goal, mechanisms for disclosure and transparency about the hazardous chemicals used in its global supply chain are important and necessary, in line with the ‘Right to Know principle’ (6). In line with this principle Inditex will increase the public availability and transparency of its restricted substance list and audit process and will set up public disclosure of discharges of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain.

        Inditex also commits to support systemic (i.e. wider societal and policy) change to achieve zero discharge of hazardous chemicals (associated with supply chain and the lifecycles of products) within one generation (7) or less. This commitment includes sustained investment in moving industry, government, science and technology to deliver on systemic change and to affect system change across the industry towards this goal.

        The 2020 goal also demands the collective action of industry, as well as engagement of regulators and other stakeholders. To this end, Inditex will work with other companies in the apparel sector and other brands it could sell, as well as material suppliers, the broader chemical industry, NGOs and other stakeholders to achieve this goal.

        Inditex understands the scope of the commitment to be a long term vision – with short term practice to be defined by the following individual action plan:

        Individual action plan.

        1. Supply-chain disclosure.

        In line with Inditex’s commitment to the public’s ‘right to know’ the chemical substances used within its global supply-chain and the products it sells, Inditex will be taking the following actions:

        1. publish its updated ‘Restricted Substances List’ and audit processes by the end of April 2013, and annually thereafter.        

        2. begin public disclosure of discharges of hazardous chemicals in its supply chain via individual facility level disclosure of chemical use and discharges data, to be achieved via an incremental process, beginning with the following actions:

        i) by no later than end of March 2013 public disclosure of at least 10 Chinese supplier facilities, plus at least 10 additional facilities in other parts of the “global south” (i.e. 20 facilities in total);        

        ii) by no later than December 2013, at least another 30 Chinese  supplier facilities (in addition to the facilities in i) above), plus at least another50 additional facilities in other parts of the “global south” (in addition to the facilities in i) above, i.e. 100 facilities in total;

        using a credible public online platform, with full facility transparency (i.e.  location and individual data of facilities) and covering at least the hazardous chemicals within the 11 priority groups of chemicals (8)

        

        2. APEO elimination policy.

        Inditex recognises the intrinsic hazardousness of all APEOs, and therefore acknowledges it is a priority to eliminate their use across its global supply chain. There are multiple supply-chain pathways for potential APEO contamination (including chemical formulations). Inditex will enhance both training and auditing of its supply-chain in conjunction with other global brands, as well as ensuring its suppliers have the latest information on APEOs,  highlighting where there is a risk that APEOs may enter into the undocumented contamination of chemical supplier formulations.

        In addition to these actions, Inditex will enforce its APEO ban with the following actions:

        i. initiate an investigation into the current compliance to this requirement, reporting the findings to the public and simultaneously strengthening its supplier legal agreement language to ensure only APEO-free chemical formulations are utilized by the end of April 2013,

        ii. work with its supply chain and other global industry leaders, to ensure the most current technological limits of detection are reflected via the lowest detectable limits within its testing regimes.

        

        3. Perfluorocarbon (PFC) elimination policy.

        In application of the precautionary principle, and recognizing that enough scientific evidence is available pointing towards a recognizable hazard posed by PFCs, Inditex commits to impose a ban on PFOS, PFOA, their salts and derivatives, and  telomeric alcohols by January 2013. This prohibition includes the manufacturing of any products Inditex sells.

        With respect to the use of PFCs, Inditex agrees to the following actions:

        i. Inditex commits to eliminate C8, C7, C6 PFC based substances in manufacturing, and in any of the products it sells no later than the end of 2013.

        ii. Inditex commits to work with suitable technical / scientific partners and stakeholders to find safer, non-fluorinated alternatives in the shortest timespan possible, with the goal of substituting all perfluorocarbon compounds with suitable, non-hazardous, non-fluorinated alternatives.

        iii.    The timelines for the elimination of all remaining PFCs will be as follows: elimination of 50% of all remaining PFCs (from the base of PFCs used as of 2012) used by January 2015; and the total elimination of all PFC use in manufacturing and in products by the end of 2015.

        The elimination of all PFC use by the products it sells will be supported by:

        i. A review of all products it produces to ensure there are no PFCs in the products we sell,

        ii. a rigorous system of control to ensure that no traces of PFCs find their way into its supply chain in line with the above.

        

        4. Targets for other hazardous chemicals.

        Inditex commits to regularly review the science of the chemicals used in the textiles/apparel industry and periodically update its chemical policy, at least annually, to further restrict or ban chemicals, as new evidence on their impact becomes available.

        In this context, its recognizes the need to not only report to the public the evidence of elimination of the 11 groups of hazardous chemicals identified as a priority but also set clear intermediate progress targets on the elimination of hazardous chemicals (beyond these 11 priority chemical groups) and the introduction of non-hazardous chemicals by 2015 on the road to elimination by 01 January 2020.

        Inditex will also ensure that it is part of an industry wide approach to ensure the use of chemicals in the products its sells and that is managed responsibly and in line with the above commitment, and in particular the intrinsic hazards approach. In line with this, Inditex commits to reinforce the work of the sectoral chemical inventory and hazardous substance black list, aiming to establish this inventory, and the black list, based on an intrinsically hazardous screening methodology, by no later than December 2013.

        The individual actions covered above will be reassessed by Inditex at regular intervals – at least annually.

        

        5. Further Actions.

        Within 8 weeks of the public release of this commitment, Inditex will publish further actions for its Individual Action Plan:

        Including a number of substitution case studies (e.g. where in the past, or currently, Inditex has substituted any of the 11 groups of hazardous chemicals as per below (8), with others non-hazardous chemicals) via a credible format (e.g. ‘Subsport system’).

      Download – Further actions included in the Individual Action Plan (updated as of 1st February 2013)

        ——————————————————————————————–

         (1) All hazardous chemicals means all those that show intrinsically hazardous properties: persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT); very persistent and very bioaccumulative (vPvB); carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction (CMR); endocrine disruptors (ED), or other properties of equivalent concern, (not just those that have been regulated or restricted in other regions). This will require establishing – ideally with other industry actors – a corresponding list of the hazardous chemicals concerned that will be regularly reviewed.

        (2) This means solutions are focused on elimination of use at source, not on end-of-pipe or risk management. This requires either substitution with non-hazardous chemicals or where necessary finding non- chemical alternative solutions, such as re-evaluating product design or the functional need for chemicals.        

        (3) This means taking preventive action before waiting for conclusive scientific proof regarding cause and effect between the substance (or activity) and the damage. It is based on the assumption that some hazardous substances cannot be rendered harmless by the receiving environment (i.e. there are no ‘environmentally acceptable’/’safe’ use or discharge levels) and that prevention of potentially serious or irreversible damage is required, even in the absence of full scientific certainty. The process of applying the Precautionary Principle must involve an examination of the full range of alternatives, including, where necessary, substitution through the development of sustainable alternatives where they do not already exist. The Precautionary Principle is applied across all products sold by Inditex (and any entities directed by, or licenced by the Inditex “Group” of entities).

        (4) Zero discharge means elimination of all releases, via all pathways of release, i.e. discharges, emissions and losses, from its supply chain and its products.  “Elimination” or “zero” means ‘not detectable, to the limits of current technology’, and only naturally occurring background levels are acceptable.

        (5) This means the commitment applies to the environmental practices of the entire company (group, and all entities it directs or licences) and for all products sold by Inditex or any of its subsidiaries. This includes all its suppliers or facilities horizontally across all owned brands and licensed companies as well as vertically down its supply chain.

        (6) Right to Know is defined as practices that allow members of the public access to environmental information – in this case specifically about the uses and discharges of chemicals based on reported quantities of releases of hazardous chemicals to the environment, chemical-by-chemical, facility-by-facility, at least year-by-year.

        (7) One generation is generally regarded as 20-25 years.

        (8) the 11 priority hazardous chemical groups are : 1. Alkylphenols 2. Phthalates 3.Brominated and chlorinated flame retardants 4. Azo dyes 5. Organotin compounds 6. Perfluorinated chemicals 7. Chlorobenzenes 8. Chlorinated solvents 9. Chlorophenols 10. Short chain chlorinated paraffins 11. Heavy metals such as cadmium, lead, mercury and chromium (VI).

Stay tuned in to see if they are able to succeed … Be a Seed for Change

written 2012