Day: December 16, 2017

The Pentagon acknowledged Saturday that its long-secret UFO investigation program ended in 2012, when U.S. defense officials shifted attention and funding to other priorities.

But whether the Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program has continued to investigate UFO sightings since its funding ended five years ago could rank as an unexplained phenomenon.

The New York Times reported Saturday that the hush-hush program, tasked with investigating sightings of unidentified flying objects, ran from 2007 to 2012 with $22 million in annual funding secretly tucked away in U.S. Defense Department budgets worth hundreds of billions of dollars.

Its initial funding came largely at the request of former Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat long known for his enthusiasm for space phenomena, the newspaper said.

Yet according to its backers, the program remains in existence and officials continue to investigate UFO episodes brought to their attention by service members, the newspaper said.

Other issues pursued

The Pentagon openly acknowledged the fate of the program in response to a Reuters query.

“The Advanced Aviation Threat Identification Program ended in the 2012 time frame,” Pentagon spokeswoman Laura Ochoa said in an email.

“It was determined that there were other, higher priority issues that merited funding and it was in the best interest of the DoD to make a change,” Ochoa said.

But the Pentagon was less clear about whether the UFO program continues to hover somewhere in the vast universe of the U.S. defense establishment.

“The DoD takes seriously all threats and potential threats to our people, our assets, and our mission and takes action whenever credible information is developed,” Ochoa said.

What is less in doubt is Reid’s enthusiasm for UFOs and his likely role in launching the Pentagon initiative to identify advanced aviation threats.

“If you’ve talked to Harry Reid for 60 seconds then it’s the least surprising thing ever that he loves UFOs and got an earmark to study them,” former Reid spokeswoman Kristen Orthman said in a message on Twitter.

Or as Reid himself said in a tweet that linked to the Times’ story: “The truth is out there. Seriously.” 
…

The U.S. Centers for Disease Control is reportedly banning a list of seven words or phrases in official documents, sparking a flood of reaction on social media platforms.

Policy analysts at the CDC, based in Atlanta, Georgia, were told about the list of prohibited words at a meeting Thursday with senior CDC officials, according to an unnamed analyst who attended the meeting as reported by The Washington Post newspaper.

The banned words are “diversity,” “entitlement,” “evidence-based,” “fetus,” “science-based,” “transgender,” and “vulnerable.”

The meeting was led by Alison Kelly, a top official in the CDC’s Office of Financial Services, according to the analyst who the Post said remained anonymous because the person was not authorized to speak publicly about agency affairs. The analyst said Kelly did not explain why the words were being forbidden.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America, a non-profit group that provides reproductive health care, said on Twitter the action sends strong messages about the administration of President Donald Trump.

“It’s clearer than ever: this administration has disdained women’s health, LGBTQ people, and science since day one.”

David Reiss, an internationally recognized psychiatrist, tweeted that the administration’s decision is counterproductive and outside the boundaries of traditional Washington politics.

“This is an attack on reality. Censoring names, Trump attempts to disappear knowledge, people & rational discourse. This is not politics or partisan but a takeover of society by authoritarian kleptocrats. Resist or Collaborate. No other options.”

Legal Lambda is a legal organization that advocates on behalf of bisexuals, gay men, lesbians, transgender people and people who have contracted HIV. The group responded on Twitter with disbelief.

“Unbelievable. You cannot erase us, @realDonaldTrump…”

Many of the responses on Twitter were triggered by comments from Democratic Congressman Ted Lieu, who blasted the Trump administration for reportedly banning the words.

“The @realDonaldTrump Administration is making America stupid again. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention banned from using “science-based” and “evidence-based” terms. Are we now going to use Voodoo & leeches to treat diseases?…”

Other officials with the nation’s top public health agency confirmed the existence of the list of banned words, the Post reported. The newspaper added the words will be prohibited from inclusion in any official CDC documents being prepared for the 2019 budget.

Unprecedented

The analyst, described by the Post as a “longtime CDC analyst” who helps write descriptions of the agency’s work for the administration’s annual budget proposal, could not remember past incidents of words being banned from budget documents because they were deemed controversial.   

“In my experience, we’ve never had any pushback from an ideological standpoint,” the analyst told the Post.

Others in the meeting reacted with disbelief, the analyst said.

The Trump administration has grappled with how to address issues such as abortion rights, gender identity and sexual orientation. Several federal agencies have altered some federal policies and how they gather information about bisexual, gay, lesbian and transgender citizens.

The Department of Health and Human Services has eliminated questions about gender identity and sexual orientation in two surveys of older people. The agency has also deleted information about LGBT people from its website.

On many occasions, the Trump administration has dismissed science-based findings in favor of opinion – particularly regarding climate change. Trump has not said if he believes in climate science and numerous members of his administration have denied facets of scientific findings related to climate change.

The Environmental Protection Agency has eliminated references to climate change on its website and has prohibited its scientists from presenting scientific reports on the topic.

The Office of Management and Budget, which produces the president’s budget and monitors federal agencies for compliance with the president’s policies, has not responded to requests for comment, nor has the CDC, the Post reported.

 
…

A Los Angeles-based company claims it is turning people’s bad habits into good ones with a range of vape-able vitamin supplements. But medical experts say there are no studies yet that show inhaling nutrients is any better than taking vitamin pills or simply eating right. Faith Lapidus reports.
…

President Donald Trump’s mining regulators are reconsidering rules meant to protect underground miners from breathing coal and rock dust — the cause of black lung — and diesel exhaust, which can cause cancer. An advocate for coal miners said Friday that this sends a “very bad signal.”

The Mine Safety and Health Administration has asked for public comments on whether standards “could be improved or made more effective or less burdensome by accommodating advances in technology, innovative techniques, or less costly methods.”

Some “requirements that could be streamlined or replaced in frequency” involve coal and rock dust. Others address diesel exhaust, which can have health impacts ranging from headaches and nausea to respiratory disease and cancer.

“Because of the carcinogenic health risk to miners from exposure to diesel exhaust, MSHA is requesting information on approaches that would improve control of diesel particulate matter and diesel exhaust,” the agency said.

Regulatory, deregulatory agenda

The Trump administration has said many federal regulations, including pollution restrictions, have depressed the coal industry and other sectors of the economy.

“President Trump made clear the progress his administration is making in bringing common sense to regulations that hold back job creation and prosperity,” Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta said Thursday in releasing his agency’s regulatory and deregulatory agenda. “The Department of Labor will continue to protect American workers’ interests while limiting the burdens of over-regulation.”

The notices on coal dust and underground diesel exhaust had few details. Both were described as “pre-rule stage.”

MSHA in 2014 had promised to conduct a retrospective study of the new dust rule, spokeswoman Amy Louviere said Friday. The current notice seeks comments on that and also on whether existing standards and regulations could be made more effective or less burdensome, she said.

“I think it’s a very bad signal for coal miners that MSHA is wanting to revisit the issue of coal dust and rock dust as well as diesel exhaust,” said attorney Tony Oppegard, who represents miners in safety cases. “I don’t think the Trump administration has coal miners’ best interests at heart. They’re aligned with coal mine operators as opposed to miners, and the only reasons they would want to reopen these rules or revisit these rules are to weaken them.”

Obama-era rules

The Obama administration, through a lengthy rulemaking process, lowered the allowable limit for miners’ dust exposure three years ago, Oppegard said. The industry and its mine operators opposed that for years, he said.

At the National Mining Association, which represents mine operators, spokesman Luke Popovich said Friday they believe a review of the dust-exposure rule “might shed valuable information on … ways it might be improved to provide further protection for miners while eliminating unnecessary implementation requirements for operators.”

David Zatezalo, a retired West Virginia coal mining executive chosen by Trump to head MSHA, said at his November confirmation hearing that the U.S. industry is safer and healthier than ever before. He said progress is needed, including technology for real-time monitoring of silica dust blamed for a virulent variation of the black lung disease that has afflicted even some younger coal miners.
…

A federal judge in Philadelphia on Friday ordered the Trump administration not to enforce new rules that could significantly reduce women’s access to free birth control.

Judge Wendy Beetlestone issued the injunction, temporarily stopping the government from enforcing the policy change to former President Barack Obama’s health care law.

The law required most companies to cover birth control at no additional cost, though it included exemptions for religious organizations.

The new policy would allow more categories of employers, including publicly traded companies, to opt out of providing free contraception to women by claiming religious objections. It would allow any company that is not publicly traded to deny coverage on moral grounds.

Health care rollback

Beetlestone, appointed to the bench by Obama, called the Trump administration’s exemptions “sweeping” and said they are the “proverbial exception that swallows the rule.”

She was particularly critical of the power to object on moral grounds, saying it “conjured up a world where a government entity is empowered to impose its own version of morality on each one of us. That cannot be right.”

Attorneys for the Trump administration had argued in court documents that the rules are about “protecting a narrow class of sincere religious and moral objectors from being forced to facilitate practices that conflict with their beliefs.”

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services issued the new policy in October. It marked another step in the Trump administration’s rollback of the Affordable Care Act, and supporters say it promotes religious freedom.

Pennsylvania case

Pennsylvania Attorney General Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said that Trump broke the law to undermine women’s health and that the ruling will protect women.

“This is just the first step, but today is a critical victory for millions of women and families and for the rule of law,” Shapiro said.

The injunction will block the rule from being implemented around the country while the case brought by Shapiro moves forward in Pennsylvania. Shapiro’s suit said the rules violate the Fifth Amendment because they pertain to women and not men, and the First Amendment, by putting employers’ religious beliefs over the constitutional rights of women.

Other states sue

California, Washington and Massachusetts have also sued the Trump administration over the rules. Delaware, Maryland, New York and Virginia joined California in its effort.

A federal judge in Oakland, California, heard arguments Tuesday on the state’s request to block the new rules and is expected to issue a ruling in that case soon.

Fatima Goss Graves, president of the National Women’s Law Center, praised the decision and said the group will continue to fight against the rules.

“Employers’ religious beliefs should never determine the care a woman receives,” she said.
…

France gave the world butter croissants and foie gras, yet it has often been a place where being overweight was seen as almost sinful.

Now, after taking a hard look at the contradictions in the mirror, its capital has launched a campaign to counter sizeism, an often disregarded kind of discrimination in the image-conscious city known for luxury fashion brands and tiny waists.

Paris anti-discrimination chief Helene Bidard began the initiative after falling victim to weight-related insults and noticing how bias against French people who are overweight went unnoticed, never mind unpunished.

“We see fat people as ugly and even stupid, lacking hygiene and in bad health,” Bidard said.

Anti-discrimination  campaign

As part of its annual week devoted to raising awareness about discrimination, Paris on Friday unveiled its “Fatphobia, stop! Taking action together” campaign with a plus-size fashion show and panels featuring bloggers from the “body positive” movement. Fifty thousand leaflets with legal advice and helpline numbers are set to be distributed at sports centers, night clubs, swimming pools and bistros.

The effort, which is aimed at countering both casual and institutionalized discrimination, comes amid rising obesity rates in France. The National Institute of Health and Medical Research reported that nearly 16 percent of the adult population was obese last year, compared to 6 percent in 1980. But thinness ideals persist.

“There’s this French paradox where you’re supposed to eat foie gras, but you’re not supposed to get fat,” said curvy French blogger Daria Marx.

Marx said that while a 2011 French law prohibits job discrimination based on physical appearance, employers often get around it by prioritizing job applications that contain candidates’ photos.

Calling it “discrimination,” she cited research that concluded that fat people are 15 times less likely to be called back for interviews if they include their photos.

Doctors also can deny in vitro fertilization to women who are deemed overweight.

​Fashtion houses respond

To challenge the images of small-sized beauty propagated by fashion houses such Paris-based Chanel, Louis Vuitton and Dior, organizers of Friday’s event put on a big-is-beautiful runway show with plus-size clothes specially made by designers such as Ewa Minge.

“In France, it’s very difficult (to buy clothes.) I only shop on the internet” or shops in London, Marx said.

French luxury giants recently woke up to the potential dangers of encouraging excessive thinness. Since Oct 1, French fashion conglomerates LVMH and Kering stopped hiring excessively thin models and now require models to provide medical certificates to prove they are healthy before they can work. The companies said they hoped to set a new global standard for the fashion industry.

The move garnered praise at Paris Fashion Week, including during the show for the collection by Stella McCartney, whose house is owned by Kering.

“The community in fashion needs to look after these young women … whether that be their emotional health, their mental health or their physical health,” McCartney told The Associated Press.

The French law initially included a minimum body mass index requirement, but it was removed after lawmakers deemed the doctor’s certificate an adequate safeguard.

Though discrimination against fat people is a real documented problem in France — a book about growing up fat in France entitled “You’re Not Born Fat” became an unexpected sensation — some remain skeptical.

“There is no problem of sizeism in Paris,” image consultant Emery Dolige said. “Does eating well make you fat? No. On the contrary. Our American friends often demonstrate that.”
…