Monday, December 15, 2014


News Clips For The Day


http://www.npr.org/2014/12/15/369366596/when-grandmas-house-is-home-the-rise-of-grandfamilies

When Grandma's House Is Home: The Rise Of Grandfamilies
Steve Inskeep
December 15, 2014

In a shift driven partly by culture and largely by the economy, the number of grandparents living with their grandchildren is up sharply. According to recent Census data, such families have increased by about a third over the past generation.

"Once the recession occurred we actually saw a real uptick in the number of kids living with their grandparents, and now the numbers are close to 8 million," says Gretchen Livingston, who's studied the trend for the Pew Research Center. "To put that in perspective, that means that about 1 in 10 kids are living with a grandparent."

Sometimes grandma comes to live with the family — and sometimes grandma is the family. In about a third of these families, there is no parent present. Grandfamilies are so common that you'll see public housing complexes designed with this in mind: wide walkways, everything on one floor, guardrails — and then outside the window there's a playground.

Donna Butts of Generations United says that while many families love the arrangement, there can be challenges, especially for the older generation. (Read a new report from Generations United on the state of grandfamilies in the U.S. Here.)

"They usually aren't expecting to be taking care of the children, so they're not prepared financially. Their home may be great for a retired person or a retired couple but not for little toddlers. Many of the grandparents — about 58 percent — are still working, so trying to juggle taking care of a child," Butts says.

This often happens at the time a grandparent is in their peak saving years for retirement, so if they're spending that money taking care of grandchildren instead Butts says it can have a serious long-term impact.

There's also a cultural dynamic at play, Butts says: Even if some people don't have to share a roof for economic or other reasons, you see some families — often Hispanic and Asian families — who want to. Those families are twice as likely to live with multiple generations in one house.

One such family is the Limongis in Queens. Diana Limongi Gabriele lives with her parents, her husband and her young son in a house that's divided into two separate apartments. Neither family could afford to buy a home on their own, so they pooled their resources.

"It kind of made sense financially for both of us," Diana tells NPR's Steve Inskeep and Jennifer Ludden.

"I thought it was a very good idea because I can't do it alone," says Diana's father, Lizandro Limongi, who came to the U.S. from Ecuador 39 years ago. This is the first home he's purchased.

There are benefits, Diana says, like the fact that her son gets to talk to his grandparents speaking Spanish. "It's really priceless," she says.

Her parents also help with child care — babysitting and day care pickup. But there are definite drawbacks. Limongi says it's difficult to hear frequent parenting advice from her parents. "There are days when you just kind of retreat to your own space, and I'm like 'OK, thank you for your comments. I'm going to leave now,' " she says, laughing.




“In a shift driven partly by culture and largely by the economy, the number of grandparents living with their grandchildren is up sharply. According to recent Census data, such families have increased by about a third over the past generation.... Sometimes grandma comes to live with the family — and sometimes grandma is the family. In about a third of these families, there is no parent present. Grandfamilies are so common that you'll see public housing complexes designed with this in mind: wide walkways, everything on one floor, guardrails — and then outside the window there's a playground.... "They usually aren't expecting to be taking care of the children, so they're not prepared financially. Their home may be great for a retired person or a retired couple but not for little toddlers. Many of the grandparents — about 58 percent — are still working, so trying to juggle taking care of a child," Butts says. This often happens at the time a grandparent is in their peak saving years for retirement, so if they're spending that money taking care of grandchildren instead Butts says it can have a serious long-term impact.”

During my childhood my father's mother lived with various of her children for a few months at a time, moving from home to home, because she didn't have any money coming in. As far as I know she had never worked except in the home, and therefore she had no Social Security benefits to fall back on. My mother had never gotten along with her very well, and she was outspoken. She also wasn't as neat as my mother wanted her to be, and required some looking after. She was in her eighties and had become suspicious, thinking that people were stealing from her. In reality, she mislaid things and could find them. The way it all started, she had been enrolled in a group home for the elderly poor, and didn't like it there. My uncle happened to be driving by there when he saw her up ahead walking along the berm with her suitcase in her hand. It seems she had just declared she was leaving and walked out.

As a member of our household, she was very entertaining. Like my father she had memorized a number of beautiful and long classic poems and would say them for our entertainment. She was also able to do her version of an Irish jig, which was amazing considering her age and weight. She was not one of those “fragile” old people. She would tell us stories from her early years, life on the farm, etc., so for me it was a win-win.

It was of course, in reality, the result of financial inability to cope as separate households. We weren't the only family with an elderly relative or adult children with their kids living in one home. The “American dream” of every family living in a separate home was not available to “the lower Middle Class,” which is what we were. I am sorry to see today that so many formerly Middle Class people are being reduced economically to this level – it's a bad sign for our country, but it isn't necessarily an unpleasant way to live.

Old people too often are put in a home for the elderly and their children don't visit them as often as they should. Sometimes they have physical problems like bed sores or worse and with the lack of family involvement, may suffer from a lack of care by the staff. I think it's much better to live with family as opposed to an abusive nursing home like some that hit the news periodically. The children should at least visit them and see that they are being bathed daily and are fitting in with the others who live there. My mother did come to enjoy her stay at her nursing home, joining in with the bingo, listening to groups that came to sing to the residents and gossiping with her fellow residents in between meals. She was well cared for and died peacefully with her family around her.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/thesalt/2014/12/15/370427441/congress-to-nutritionists-dont-talk-about-the-environment

Congress To Nutritionists: Don't Talk About The Environment
Dan Charles
December 15, 2014

A government-appointed group of top nutrition experts, assigned to lay the scientific groundwork for a new version of the nation's dietary guidelines, decided earlier this year to collect data on the environmental implication of different food choices.

Congress now has slapped them down.

Lawmakers attached a list of "congressional directives" to a massive spending bill that passed both the House and the Senate in recent days. One of those directives expresses "concern" that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee "is showing an interest in incorporating agriculture production practices and environmental factors" into their recommendations, and directs the Obama administration to ignore such factors in the next revision of the guidelines, which is due out next year.

The directive is not legally binding, but ignoring it would provoke yet another political battle between the Obama administration and Congress.

The federal dietary guidelines have never explicitly considered the effects of food choices on the environment, but the idea of doing so is not new.

In 1986, nutritionist Kate Clancy, then teaching at Syracuse University, co-authored an article called "Dietary Guidelines for Sustainability." It was addressed to her colleagues, Clancy says. She wanted them "to take a broader view of what they were advising people to do, with regard to their diet. It wasn't just nutrients." She urged them to consider not just what foods contribute to personal health, but also what types of food "contribute to the protection of our natural resources."

Earlier this year, after the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee decided to look at some environmental aspects of diet, Clancy finally got an invitation to make her case to the committee. "Let me say that after 30 years of waiting, that fact that this committee is addressing sustainability issues brings me a lot of pleasure," Clancy told the committee.

Members of the advisory committee aren't allowed to talk to the press about their work. But Timothy Searchinger, a researcher with Princeton University and the World Resources Institute, an environmental group, believes that recommendations about diet have to consider environmental impacts.

Producing food, he says, already claims half of all land where vegetation can grow. Farming is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. "That doesn't mean that farmers are bad. It means that eating has a big impact on the environment," he says.

The impact will grow in the future, along with the world's population. So if people are thinking about their own personal environmental footprint, he says, "probably what you eat is more important than anything else."

Deciding exactly which foods are better than others can provide endless arguments. But economist Thomas Hertel, at Purdue University, says a few big points are pretty clear. Among the biggest: Producing meat is especially costly, and beef in particular. Beef cattle release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. In addition, growing food for animals takes a lot of land.

Hertel says that overall, throughout the world, people are demanding more meat, and that's pushing farmers to clear forests and plow up grasslands. "Conversion of lands for agriculture has been a major source of greenhouse gas emissions over the past couple of decades," he says.

If Americans, who eat a lot of meat, ate a little less of it, there would be a little less pressure on the world's remaining forests.

The Dietary Guidelines Advisory committee has been considering all of this. In a meeting of the panel a few months ago, Miriam Nelson, from Tufts University, told the rest of the committee that "in general, a dietary pattern that is higher in plant-based foods and lower in animal-based foods is more health-promoting and is associated with less environmental impact."

This new focus has already run into criticism. The American Meat Institute, which represents meat producers, says nutritionists don't have the expertise to take on environmental questions.

The new directive from Congress may shut down the fledgling effort completely.
The committee, coincidentally, is in Washington, D.C., for a meeting on Monday. It will have to consider how to respond.




“One of those directives expresses "concern" that the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee "is showing an interest in incorporating agriculture production practices and environmental factors" into their recommendations, and directs the Obama administration to ignore such factors in the next revision of the guidelines, which is due out next year. The directive is not legally binding, but ignoring it would provoke yet another political battle between the Obama administration and Congress. The federal dietary guidelines have never explicitly considered the effects of food choices on the environment, but the idea of doing so is not new.... Farming is one of the biggest sources of greenhouse gases. "That doesn't mean that farmers are bad. It means that eating has a big impact on the environment," he says. The impact will grow in the future, along with the world's population.... Among the biggest: Producing meat is especially costly, and beef in particular. Beef cattle release methane, a powerful greenhouse gas. In addition, growing food for animals takes a lot of land.... This new focus has already run into criticism. The American Meat Institute, which represents meat producers, says nutritionists don't have the expertise to take on environmental questions. The new directive from Congress may shut down the fledgling effort completely.

I am aware that cattle release methane into the air, as I assume all ruminants do, but I didn't know it was such a large amount that I really should feel guilty for eating beef. If it is a large environmental problem, I don't think the advisory committee should be restricted by Congress from recommending new standards, however. It would probably help the environment if more people could be persuaded to boycott beef. I don't want to become a vegetarian, but I can keep the amount I eat down. For health reasons I have already started buying more frozen green vegetables and fruit to make up a large part of my meals, with cheese for protein. Unfortunately that is produced by cattle, too. No matter how much the government “advises me,” I doubt that I will go vegan. I am eating a higher proportion of vegetables and fruit, though, and will continue to do so.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2014/12/15/370139147/to-stop-teen-drinking-parties-fine-the-parents

To Stop Teen Drinking Parties, Fine The Parents
Patti Neighmond
December 15, 2014

When it comes to teenage drinking, the typical venue is a party — where some teens play drinking games and binge. It may surprise you to learn that the majority of parents are aware that alcohol is flowing at these events.

On any given weekend, some teenagers receive three to four text messages about parties, says Bettina Friese, a public health researcher at the Prevention Research Center in Oakland, Calif.

Friese recently conducted a study on teen drinking. She interviewed 1,100 teenagers living in Northern California. Most did not host parties with alcohol. But of the 39 percent who did, 70 percent said their parents knew kids at the party were drinking. Twenty-four percent said their parents "probably" knew, leaving just a handful of parents in the dark.

Now some communities across the United States are trying to hold these parents accountable and fine them for allowing underage drinking in their homes.

When Friese interviewed parents about why they allowed alcohol, there were many excuses, she says — everything from concern about alienating their children to worries that imposing strict rules might encourage more dangerous rebellion.

Many parents felt drinking was inevitable, she says. One mother told Friese, "I'd rather they make their mistakes when they're at home than when they're away."

Many parents said they believed it was safer for their child (and even their child's friends) to drink at their house rather than someplace else, Friese says. The biggest concern among the parents was drunken driving; many said they had their child's friends stay the night to avoid driving. Many parents said they knew it was "wrong" to allow alcohol at teen parties. But, Friese says, they felt they had no choice.

That may be changing. Nationwide, cities and communities are starting to crack down. So far, 28 states have some sort of social host law on the books. These laws hold adults responsible for any underage drinking that happens on their property.

The details of the law vary, community to community and state to state. One of the most stringent laws is in Ventura County in California, says Bernadette Compean, an alcohol beverage control officer with the Ventura Police Department.

"The bottom line is you can't provide alcohol to minors, period," she says, adding that Ventura is the only county in California where all of the cities have similar laws.

The county's laws are crystal clear: If you're 21 or older and you host a party where alcohol is available to teenagers, you can be fined $1,000 on the spot. If parents aren't home, the teen who's hosting the party gets the ticket. And to make sure tickets don't get ignored, police promptly follow up with a letter to parents informing them about the party, the ticket and the $1,000 fine.

If police are called a second time in one year, the fine doubles to $2,000 plus the cost of city services — which can run into thousands of dollars more if the fire department or other emergency services are involved. Compean says most teens and parents get the message the first time. She hasn't been called back much for second offenses.

Since the law was passed six years ago, underage drinking has declined throughout the county, and teenagers report that it's become more difficult to obtain alcohol.

And it's not just in Ventura that such laws are changing behavior. Public health researcher M.J. Paschall, also with the Prevention Research Center, recently did a study comparing cities in California that had social host laws with cities that did not.

"We found that cities with more stringent and enforceable social host laws had lower levels of drinking at parties among teenagers compared to cities with less stringent laws, or without any kind of social host law," Paschall says.

He plans future research to see if the laws also result in fewer alcohol-related accidents and injuries — especially from drunken driving.




“It may surprise you to learn that the majority of parents are aware that alcohol is flowing at these events. On any given weekend, some teenagers receive three to four text messages about parties, says Bettina Friese, a public health researcher at the Prevention Research Center in Oakland, Calif.... But of the 39 percent who did, 70 percent said their parents knew kids at the party were drinking. Twenty-four percent said their parents "probably" knew, leaving just a handful of parents in the dark. Now some communities across the United States are trying to hold these parents accountable and fine them for allowing underage drinking in their homes.... That may be changing. Nationwide, cities and communities are starting to crack down. So far, 28 states have some sort of social host law on the books. These laws hold adults responsible for any underage drinking that happens on their property. "The bottom line is you can't provide alcohol to minors, period," she says, adding that Ventura is the only county in California where all of the cities have similar laws. The county's laws are crystal clear: If you're 21 or older and you host a party where alcohol is available to teenagers, you can be fined $1,000 on the spot. If parents aren't home, the teen who's hosting the party gets the ticket. And to make sure tickets don't get ignored, police promptly follow up with a letter to parents informing them about the party, the ticket and the $1,000 fine.... Compean says most teens and parents get the message the first time. She hasn't been called back much for second offenses. Since the law was passed six years ago, underage drinking has declined throughout the county, and teenagers report that it's become more difficult to obtain alcohol.”

This is clearly a good law, in my opinion. They made the fines in Ventura county stiff enough that people don't want to pay it again, and elevated it even higher when police, fire or others become involved in the matter. Kids are drinking less often as a result. “Many parents felt drinking was inevitable, she says. One mother told Friese, "I'd rather they make their mistakes when they're at home than when they're away." I remember a professor on my college campus during the 1970's who said he believes in teaching children responsible drinking, and gave them a glass of wine when they reached the age of 13. I personally think 13 is too young for even one glass of wine, and teenagers when their parents aren't around tend to start having drinking parties without parental consent. The more this happens, the more likely it is that they will binge. This particular professor was himself a heavy drinker, though I doubt that he thought he was drinking “too much”

This is a true blue American tradition – “social drinking.” There are many adults of all ages who don't even consider abstaining from alcohol entirely, so for them it's a matter of “control.” This professor wanted to teach his children “control” and “holding their liquor.” Unfortunately, many, many people in our society drink without sufficient control on a regular basis, either by accident or on purpose, so those attitudes about alcohol are simply being passed down to their children without anyone thinking about it as a problem, except perhaps the police. The problem of driving while intoxicated, at least on college campuses, is being “controlled” not by everybody having only one drink an hour as is recommended, but by means of having a “designated driver,” who won't drink at all, and will then drive everyone home. Too often, though, they don't even do that. Thus we have countless wrecks daily across the country.

I do hope that laws of this sort do pop up across the country, because alcohol and drug abuse, whether or not the users drive under the influence, are major health problems in our society, and getting yourself off a drug to which you have become addicted (that includes alcohol and nicotine) is a very difficult thing. That's why AA and NA are so popular now. They are an inexpensive way to free oneself of a dangerous and death-dealing habit, and protect the community from violence that so often occurs as a result of intoxication.





http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2014/12/09/369663245/congress-says-goodbye-to-its-last-world-war-ii-vets

Congress Says Goodbye To Its Last World War II Vets
Don Gonyea
December 09, 2014

The World War II era is about to officially draw to a close in the United States Congress. This comes after seven full decades during which there was always a veteran of that war in the legislative body.

The last two World War II veterans will leave office at the end of the current session of Congress. They are 88-year-old Michigan Democrat John Dingell and his longtime friend, 91-year-old Republican Ralph Hall of Texas. Dingell, who represents southeast Michigan, was elected in 1955 and is the longest-serving member in the history of Congress. He decided not to seek re-election this year. Hall, who represents the corner of Texas that borders Oklahoma and Arkansas, is not retiring of his own volition. He ran for re-election but was defeated in a primary runoff in the spring.

They are the last to depart out of hundreds who served in the military during that war and who went on to careers in the U.S. House and Senate.

From torpedo boats to the halls of the Capitol

The first of the World War II veterans to serve in Congress arrived even before the war was over.

George Andrews, a lawyer and former district attorney, had run for Congress before and lost. But in 1944, the death of the sitting congressman meant there was an open seat, so he declared his candidacy even though he was still an active member of the U.S. Navy serving in Pearl Harbor. He could run, but he couldn't just pack up and go home to campaign. Additionally, he was forbidden, as a member of the service, to publicly take political positions.

U.S. House historian Matthew Wasniewski says the solution was to have Andrews' wife, Elizabeth Bullock Andrews, campaign on his behalf. He won and was sworn into Congress in March of that year, putting him, as Wasniewski says, "at front end of that wave" of World War II vets serving in office at the U.S. Capitol.

Two years later, when the war was over, the first big wave of World War II veterans came to Congress. The U.S. House of Representatives class of 1946 included some 70 members who had served in the war. Among them was John F. Kennedy, whose exploits as the commander of a torpedo boat in the Pacific were already well-known to the public thanks to a 1944 article in The New Yorker, written by John Hersey.

It's a tale that would, years later, get blockbuster Hollywood treatment in a film called PT 109.

Other veterans elected in '46 included some of the biggest names in 20th century American politics, including Richard Nixon and future House Speaker Carl Albert. One election later, in 1948, another future president, Gerald R. Ford, entered Congress.

The number of veterans kept growing, and they moved into the top leadership positions. By the 1970s nearly 4 of 5 members of Congress were veterans, the majority from World War II. Today, only 1 in 5 is a vet.

House historian Wasniewski says the shared experience of World War II brought a moderating influence to their politics.

"The House has always been a partisan place; from the beginning it's been partisan," he says. But "that period from the late 1940s to early 1970s when that World War II group hits their peak [by the numbers] is in a lot of ways the exception to the rule when it comes to bipartisanship."

The final two: Reps. Dingell and Hall

Dingell was just 15 years old when he got an up-close glimpse of a pivotal moment in the war's history. In December 1941, he was working as a page in the U.S. House chamber when President Roosevelt delivered his "Day of Infamy" speech the day after the attack on Pearl Harbor. Dingell enlisted when he turned 18 in the summer of 1944. He notes that he never saw combat and "never had a particularly romantic or exciting assignment."

Dingell eventually went to officer candidates school and says he would very likely have been in the wave of an American ground attack on Japan. It's an attack that never happened because of President Truman's decision to drop the atomic bomb. Dingell says that probably saved his life.

In an interview with NPR in his office at the Capitol, Dingell spoke of the success and importance of the GI Bill, which paved the way for millions of veterans to go to college, get a mortgage or get a loan to start a business.

Dingell says that Truman "thought it was a great thing. Republicans thought it was a great thing. Democrats thought it was a great thing. And the end result was a great achievement for the United States."

Both Dingell and Hall, a former Navy pilot, went to college on the GI Bill. Dingell decided not to run for re-election this year. Hall, who has served 17 terms, lost in the Republican primary in May. In December 2012, Hall became the oldest person ever to serve in the House.

They are old friends, and now the final of the hundreds of World War II veterans to serve in Congress. They are — as Dingell has described himself and Hall — the last leaves on the tree.




“The last two World War II veterans will leave office at the end of the current session of Congress. They are 88-year-old Michigan Democrat John Dingell and his longtime friend, 91-year-old Republican Ralph Hall of Texas. Dingell, who represents southeast Michigan, was elected in 1955 and is the longest-serving member in the history of Congress. He decided not to seek re-election this year. Hall, who represents the corner of Texas that borders Oklahoma and Arkansas, is not retiring of his own volition. He ran for re-election but was defeated in a primary runoff in the spring.... The U.S. House of Representatives class of 1946 included some 70 members who had served in the war. Among them was John F. Kennedy.... The number of veterans kept growing, and they moved into the top leadership positions. By the 1970s nearly 4 of 5 members of Congress were veterans, the majority from World War II. Today, only 1 in 5 is a vet.”

Viewing the change in Congressional politics from 1960 to the present is more than just poignant. I do think the quality of those who served at the time was higher than now, though there was still plenty of partisanship back then. Congress did seem to unite together well enough to get more laws passed, though, and such issues as school desegregation and the Civil Rights law were passed in spite of “the solid South” – a sign of political courage that may be lacking now. If the current Congress will pass legislation to put a stop to most of the police brutality that goes on without being punished by the police chiefs and city councils, I will say that they are showing both wisdom and courage in Congress, despite the political divide.

My father didn't have to join the army because he already had two children when his number was pulled and my mother had no other income to provide for them besides his salary. I have noted with sadness, however, that he and his brothers and sisters are all gone to their rest now. I was fond of my aunts and uncles. Their dying marks the end of a generation of people who were to be called “the greatest generation” because of their service to their country and their lives of financial difficulty during the Great Depression. They really went through a great deal of hardship. I was born in 1945, but I listened to their life stories over the dinner table and felt empathy with their losses. That generation of men and women were young during the 1920's which was a time of great national optimism, only to be dropped suddenly to sometimes severe poverty in the crash of 1929. I grew up well aware of the need to live within our income, even if it meant wearing hand-me-down clothing. It was a great thing that my father was a truly talented gardener, and produced plenty of food for our table. While not a perfect time in my life, it was basically a good time, and I look back with pleasure.






http://www.npr.org/2014/12/14/370670678/more-than-just-cute-sea-otters-are-superheroes-of-the-marsh

More Than Just Cute, Sea Otters Are Superheroes Of The Marsh
JAMES DELAHOUSSAYE
December 14, 2014

On the roof of the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey, Calif., in a large plastic tank, a sea otter mother named Abby floats with her adopted pup, known as 671.

For up to nine months, Abby will raise her little adoptee, and when 671 is ready, she will be released into a protected inland salt marsh called Elkhorn Slough, just off Monterey Bay.

That's where 671 will set to work to preserve the estuary, says Tim Tinker, who tracks otters for the U.S. Geological Survey.

"The reason why we focus on sea otters is not just because they're cute and fun to watch, but because they have a very outsize role to play in the function of this system," Tinker says.

Fewer than 3,000 southern sea otters live in the wild, only a quarter of their population of 150 years ago. State and federal protections in recent decades have stabilized sea otter numbers. Now, researchers along California's central coast are learning that the otters also having a positive effect on the ecosystems where they live.

Elkhorn Slough is now a protected research reserve, but 20 years ago, there were no sea otters here, and the marsh was a mess.

Farmland runoff regularly pours into this estuary, loading it with man-made nutrients.

"It's sort of just like throwing ... a bunch of fertilizer in here," says Tinker. "You're going to get a bunch of algae growing, and that algae grows over top of the eelgrass and chokes it out."

This eelgrass was home to an entire food chain of animals — or it was, until the algae took over. Bugs would normally keep the algae in check, but with no sea otters around, the otters' favorite food — crabs — ate the bugs. And there are lots and lots of crabs.

"Within the marsh banks itself, there are all these holes," Tinker says. "Those are the crab condos ... that's what I call them."

Brent Hughes, a researcher at the University of California Santa Cruz, says there were so many crab condos, the muddy banks couldn't support themselves.

"This ecosystem is literally collapsing into the ocean," Hughes says. "The reason being is that we're losing the banks, and we're losing the marsh plants that are stabilizing it."

All this upheaval affects another animal: humans. Habitats like Elkhorn provide all sorts of ecological benefits: Fishermen benefit from natural fish nurseries; homes benefit from a natural barrier to storms and sea rise; the planet benefits from the carbon dioxide that marshland plants soak up.

That's where sea otters come in. Under decades of government protection, they're back, and eating crabs. That means the algae is down, the sea grass is up, and with crab condo vacancies, the muddy marshland banks are still here.

Tinker says even he was surprised by the turnaround.

"All of a sudden, they teach us this entire new thing about how there's a food web that sea otters are a part of that can actually make sea grass healthy even when there's nutrients," he says. "This was something we had no clue about."

Tinker says that realization has changed the philosophy behind sea otter conservation. It's not just about saving individual species, as cute as they are — it's about saving entire ecosystems.

"They're saving us," he says. "They're saving ecosystems that we rely on, and so it's a different sort of message than the one that we started out with 15 years ago."




“Fewer than 3,000 southern sea otters live in the wild, only a quarter of their population of 150 years ago. State and federal protections in recent decades have stabilized sea otter numbers... "It's sort of just like throwing ... a bunch of fertilizer in here," says Tinker. "You're going to get a bunch of algae growing, and that algae grows over top of the eelgrass and chokes it out." This eelgrass was home to an entire food chain of animals — or it was, until the algae took over. Bugs would normally keep the algae in check, but with no sea otters around, the otters' favorite food — crabs — ate the bugs. And there are lots and lots of crabs.... Brent Hughes, a researcher at the University of California Santa Cruz, says there were so many crab condos, the muddy banks couldn't support themselves. "This ecosystem is literally collapsing into the ocean," Hughes says. "The reason being is that we're losing the banks, and we're losing the marsh plants that are stabilizing it." All this upheaval affects another animal: humans. Habitats like Elkhorn provide all sorts of ecological benefits: Fishermen benefit from natural fish nurseries; homes benefit from a natural barrier to storms and sea rise; the planet benefits from the carbon dioxide that marshland plants soak up.... Tinker says even he was surprised by the turnaround. "All of a sudden, they teach us this entire new thing about how there's a food web that sea otters are a part of that can actually make sea grass healthy even when there's nutrients," he says. "This was something we had no clue about."

I really love animals, plants, and natural environments as a whole. Biology is and always has been one of my favorite subjects to learn about. It's so complex, with every species interlinked together in the most surprising ways, that you can study it endlessly and keep discovering new things. That's why I do care big-time about our ecosystems. When big oil or some other business wants to squelch the environmentalists voices, I get really angry. This article is particularly pleasing because a set of wetlands that was degrading rapidly has been turned around by the simple expedient of adding sea otters to the area. It gives that endangered species another place to live and multiply, and fills in a crucial link in an ecological web of being. Great new article!





http://www.npr.org/2014/12/14/367833532/tenant-blacklist-can-haunt-new-york-renters-for-years

Tenant Blacklist Can Haunt New York Renters For Years
MIRELA IVERAC
December 14, 2014

Back in 2009, Robert Guzman lived in the Bronx with his wife and young son. He had a good job in advertising and paid his rent on time — until he made a discovery.

"There were rats coming up from the basement — I lived on the first floor," he says. "They were like, giant rats."

Guzman repeatedly asked the building management to address the problem, but that didn't work. So he decided to withhold his rent. He wasn't "just being a deadbeat renter," Guzman says. "I'm withholding the rent for a reason."

New Yorkers have a history of using this tactic to force unwilling landlords to make repairs. But landlords often respond by suing their tenants, and for some cases, those suits can haunt a tenant later — long after the lawsuit is resolved and regardless of the circumstance.

It's because of something widely known as the tenant blacklist.

'As Soon As You Show Up In Court, That's It'

Guzman learned about it after his landlord sued to evict him for three months of unpaid rent. Guzman and the landlord eventually settled, but later, Guzman was rejected multiple times by other landlords when he tried to move, despite his good credit score.

"The realtor is telling me, 'What happened? You went to court?' I said, 'Yeah, I went to court, but it was for a reason.' "

The landlords don't care, Guzman's attorney told him. " 'As [soon] as you show up in court, that's it — you're on the tenants blacklist.' I had no clue what that was," Guzman says.

The blacklist is actually a database of suits filed by landlords and compiled by tenant screening companies. According to one report, around 650 of these companies are in business all across the country.

James Fishman, a tenant and consumer attorney in New York City, says tenant screening reports aren't very detailed. They don't contain enough information to differentiate between renters asserting their rights and others who are truly problematic.

"There are many reasons that tenants get sued that have nothing to do with whether they're a good tenant or not," Fishman says. "In fact, a lot of the reasons have to do with whether they have a bad landlord or not."

'It Gives Owners One More Tool'

Two screening companies, CoreLogic SafeRent and TransUnion Rental Screening Solutions, declined requests for interviews. But in emails, they say that consumers can dispute reports they believe are inaccurate or incomplete.

These companies are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and some argue their services help weed out deadbeat renters.

"It gives the owner one more tool," says Frank Ricci, director of government affairs at the Rent Stabilization Association, the largest landlord group in New York City. "There are professional tenants out there who, over the years, go from building to building, apartment to apartment, and skip out on the rent."

In New York, tenant screening companies get help in gathering information from the state courts. The courts assign index numbers to housing court cases, then sell those numbers to the rental screening companies.

David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, says there are no rules against the practice.

"It's public information. We basically collate the information," he says.

Those who watch tenants issues don't expect the use of this information to change. Tenants will have to continue to figure out a solution on their own if they end up blacklisted. In the case of Robert Guzman, he hired a lawyer who got his name off the list.




“New Yorkers have a history of using this tactic to force unwilling landlords to make repairs. But landlords often respond by suing their tenants, and for some cases, those suits can haunt a tenant later — long after the lawsuit is resolved and regardless of the circumstance. It's because of something widely known as the tenant blacklist.... The blacklist is actually a database of suits filed by landlords and compiled by tenant screening companies. According to one report, around 650 of these companies are in business all across the country. James Fishman, a tenant and consumer attorney in New York City, says tenant screening reports aren't very detailed. They don't contain enough information to differentiate between renters asserting their rights and others who are truly problematic. "There are many reasons that tenants get sued that have nothing to do with whether they're a good tenant or not," Fishman says. "In fact, a lot of the reasons have to do with whether they have a bad landlord or not."... These companies are regulated by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, and some argue their services help weed out deadbeat renters. "It gives the owner one more tool," says Frank Ricci, director of government affairs at the Rent Stabilization Association, the largest landlord group in New York City.... The courts assign index numbers to housing court cases, then sell those numbers to the rental screening companies. David Bookstaver, spokesman for the Office of Court Administration, says there are no rules against the practice. "It's public information. We basically collate the information," he says.”

So the courts are linked up with these screening companies, but why? They get paid for collating the data by those screeners and that isn't illegal. The court must use the fee they get for general purposes, but it probably has to keep track of the money, and there's probably a law that defines what they do and how. It may not be illegal, but it is as scuzzy a practice as what the landlords do, and it does enable lousy landlords to keep low cost rentals profitable by the simple expedient of never making repairs. Unless things have changed, they can then get tax write-offs on the property for depreciation, while still collecting rent.

There have been scuzzy landlords since I was living in DC in the 1970s to 90s, and I did one time withhold my rent. You do have to set up an escrow account in the bank and pay your money into it, and inform the landlord in writing of what you are doing and why. I lucked out. My landlord fixed the problem. I would really like to see a law preventing all these parties from working together in this way to defraud the poor tenant of his rent. They do look for low rent apartments, of course, because they can't afford more. The law, naturally, is behind the landowners, who can be very rich indeed, and probably pay bribes to get such laws written. They are veritable Scrooges. Things like this make me sick. The world of business and power have always been interlinked, and endlessly corrupt. I'm afraid that most people don't play by the moral rules that they say they believe in. This country is Christian in name only.