Finland provides all mothers-to-be with a baby box, but there’s a string attached. To receive it, the mother has to undergo a medical exam during the first four months of pregnancy.

Each year the government gives away about 40,000 of the boxes, which come with bedding and about 50 other baby items, including clothes, socks, a warm coat and even a baby balaclava for the icy Nordic winter. (Mothers who don’t need all those items can choose to get 140 euros instead, or about $155.)



The program started in the late 1930s, when nearly one of out 10 infants in Finland died in their first year. The boxes were a low-cost way to encourage women to set aside old habits and see a doctor during pregnancy. They also provided a safe place outside of parents’ beds for infants to sleep, in homes that might have only rudimentary furniture.

-------------

There are efforts to extend the baby-box idea to a wider audience. A hospital in London recently began giving out the boxes on a trial basis. In Minnesota, a nonprofit group distributed the boxes to low-income families, inspiring a proposal being debated by state lawmakers. A graduate student at Harvard formed an organization to distribute similar kits in South Asia.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/world/what-in-the-world/finland-baby-box.html?module=WatchingPortal®ion=c-column-middle-span-region&pgType=Homepage&action=click&mediaId=wide&state=standard&contentPlacement=3&version=internal&contentCollection=www.nytimes.com&contentId=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.nytimes.com%2F2016%2F07%2F07%2Fworld%2Fwhat-in-the-world%2Ffinland-baby-box.html&eventName=Watching-article-click&_r=0

Amid the incessant din of election-year punditry and prognostication, one fact reigns supreme: Republicans vote for Republicans and Democrats vote for Democrats.



It is an inescapable truth that informs 90% of races; the more members of one party that reside in any given state or district, the better chance a politician of that party will win. It is why America is freckled with "red" and "blue" states and "safe" congressional seats. It is also why American presidential races are typically close, regardless of who the candidates may be.

But 2016 is no typical year. Republicans have nominated a candidate who is only recently and tangentially Republican, and whose staunchest supporters are left to argue he is fit for the presidency only because his Democratic opponent is more unfit.

It has long been clear that Donald Trump's party fluidity almost certainly will spell doom for Republicans in November. Trump hurdled the GOP primary field because he said things politicians could never say — and now Republicans are going to learn the hard way why politicians never say those things. Trump is now the Bruce Willis character in "The Sixth Sense": his candidacy is dead, he just doesn't realize it yet. (Sorry for the spoiler, but c'mon — it's been 17 years.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/nation-now/2016/07/05/no-matter-how-you-look-trumps-not-winning-column/86715020/

The 8 Most Unhinged Right-Wing Reactions to the FBI’s Clinton Email Announcement
Sarah Palin and various Fox Newsians are really not happy.
By Elizabeth Preza / AlterNet July 5, 2016


Here’s a run-down of the most feverish right-wing reactions to today’s non-event.



2. Sarah Palin

The former vice-presidential candidate decried Comey’s recommendation, oddly urging her supporters to "restore the rule of law” (and conveniently ignoring her son’s recent domestic violence arrest), despite the fact that the recommendation comes from one of the country's top lawmen.

“Ironic, tragic, but not unexpected—amidst America’s Independence Day celebrations the Ruling Class put another boot on our neck to snuff liberty’s life out of We the People,” Palin wrote on Facebook. “We MUST redouble efforts to restore the rule of law that had sustained the most exceptional nation on earth, with everyone doing their part.”

The former governor of Alaska also blamed, in part, the Never Trumpers who refuse to back the presidential candidate.

"GOP ‪#‎NEVERTRUMP‬ TRAITORS—HILLARY DELIGHTS IN YOU, FOR SHE CAN'T WIN WITHOUT YOU," Palin presumably yelled.


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/most-right-wing-reactions-fbis-clinton-email-announcemen



6. Erik Erickson

Everyone’s least favorite misogynist took a unique stance on the Clinton email inquiry, suggesting Clinton was spared an indictment because of her gender.

“If Hillary Clinton were a man, she’d be indicted,” Erickson wrote in an article on his website.

“It is because she is a female with the last name Clinton,” he concluded. “Any one of you reading this right now would have been indicted.”

Unless we are a woman or have the last name Clinton, we suppose.

PARIS — In recent days, jihadists killed 41 people at Istanbul’s bustling, shiny airport; 22 at a cafe in Bangladesh; and at least 250 celebrating the final days of Ramadan in Baghdad. Then the Islamic State attacked, again, with bombings in three cities in Saudi Arabia.

By Tuesday, Michel Kilo, a Syrian dissident, was leaning wearily over his coffee at a Left Bank cafe, wondering: Where was the global outrage? Where was the outpouring that came after the same terrorist groups unleashed horror in Brussels and here in Paris? In a supposedly globalized world, do nonwhites, non-Christians and non-Westerners count as fully human?

---------------

This is not the first time that the West seems to have shrugged off massacres in predominantly Muslim countries. But the relative indifference after so many deaths caused by the very groups that have plagued the West is more than a matter of hurt feelings.

----------------

There are some understandable reasons for the differing reactions. People typically identify more closely with places and cultures that are familiar to them. With Iraq, there is also a degree of fatigue, and a feeling that a bombing there is less surprising than one in Europe.

Deadly attacks have been a constant in Iraq after years of American occupation, followed by a sectarian war in which Sunni and Shiite militias slaughtered civilians of the opposite sect. Still, while terrorist attacks in Europe may feel more surprising to the West — though they have become all too common there, too — that does not explain the relative indifference to attacks in Istanbul, Saudi Arabia or Bangladesh.


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/world/europe/muslims-baghdad-dhaka-istanbul-terror.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

Hillary Clinton is crushing Donald Trump in almost all of the states needed to swing the presidential election in November.

A new Ballotpedia poll of swing-state voters released Tuesday found Clinton leading Trump by significant margins in numerous key battleground states.

According to Tuesday's poll, Clinton leads Trump 51% to 37% in Florida, 45% to 41% in Iowa, 48% to 38% in North Carolina, and 45% to 38% in Virginia.

http://www.sfgate.com/technology/businessinsider/article/Hillary-Clinton-just-used-Donald-Trump-to-attack-6371627.php


Not all the polling news on Wednesday was bad for Trump.
A new Quinnipiac University poll of 1,600 registered voters nationally found Trump and Clinton in a dead heat, with the former secretary of state leading but just 2 points, well within the survey's margin of error.


Still, other national polls found the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee in much better standing.
New Washington Post/ABC and Reuters polls published over the weekend found Trump trailing Clinton by double digits, while an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll found that the real-estate magnate trailed Clinton by 5 points, down from 3 points in May.

Gallup reports that Trump is more disliked than any general election candidate in the last 60 years. Even Barry Goldwater at his lowest point was not viewed as negatively as Trump is now. The polling organization’s latest survey looked not just at whether people view a candidate favorably or unfavorably, but to what extent.

Participants grade the candidate’s appeal on a 10-point scale. Forty-two percent of those surveyed gave Trump either the lowest or second-lowest possible rating. It was a record for Gallup, though Trump was not alone in besting Goldwater there. Clinton had 33% of voters giving her such low grades, which far exceeds the 26% Goldwater received at his low point in 1964.

But where Trump excelled in record setting was the total number of people who found him unfavorable to at least some extent. For every two people who view him positively, another three view him negatively. Clinton about breaks even, just as Goldwater did on the Gallup “scalometer” back in 1964.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-trailguide-updates-donald-trump-breaks-a-record-and-it-s-1467646802-htmlstory.html

Source: Washington post


Mr. Trump’s fake charity


DONALD TRUMP, perhaps the greatest braggart ever to aspire to national office, is hardly shy about flaunting — or rather hyping — his good works. So it has been with his charitable giving, which, for the better part of 30 years, he has regularly exaggerated to the point of plain mendacity.

That Mr. Trump in his public utterances is a serial embellisher is no surprise. Still, the shamelessness by which his actual giving to worthy causes has trailed his public claims of generosity is stunning. And given the relish with which he boasted of his giving, his campaign’s assertion that he has made private, quiet charitable gifts strains credulity.

A painstaking review by The Post’s David A. Fahrenthold, comparing Mr. Trump’s public statements with available records of his giving, found a pattern of exaggeration and unfulfilled pledges.

----

The issue is not that Mr. Trump has been stingy, although he has made no bequests to his foundation since 2008, and his giving levels before that appear to have been far lower than those of others who have the wealth Mr. Trump insists he enjoys. The issue is the cavernous gulf between his words and deeds.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mr-trumps-fake-charity/2016/07/03/fbcd52e2-3e44-11e6-84e8-1580c7db5275_story.html

---

?uuid=RKEWWjpVEeaczdYAW-rIsw

Less than a week after the Supreme Court's major abortion ruling in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, related restrictions across the country began falling like dominoes.

And that's just the beginning, according to advocates for abortion rights, who say their victory at the court will both strengthen existing efforts to beat back such laws and offer them a new set of tools for future challenges.

"I suspect that we're just seeing the tip of the iceberg," said Janet Crepps, senior counsel at the Center for Reproductive Rights, which represented the victorious Texas abortion clinics before the Supreme Court. "This opinion is going to have long term ramifications and ripple effects in current cases and cases we'll be bringing."

Since Monday, laws restricting abortion and non-abortion Planned Parenthood funding have already been temporarily or permanently wiped out in six states. The Center for Reproductive Rights filed a new case Friday challenging a whopping seven of Louisiana's new abortion restrictions. And on the heels of Whole Woman's Health, Planned Parenthood Federation of America announced an effort to pursue repealing laws in eight states through legislatures. (Even lawmakers hostile to abortion may prefer the less expensive option of repealing a law, rather than having to defend one that is unlikely to stand after the Supreme Court's decision.)

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/abortion-laws-tumble-across-country-n602721

The Rockets’ Red Glare

The vast majority of the world’s fireworks come from China. And sometimes they explode early, with deadly consequences.




It was a muggy first day of fall, a morning with nothing in particular to distinguish it from the decade of Mondays Huang had toiled at the Nanyang Export Fireworks Factory in southern China’s Hunan province. By that afternoon, 14 women—her co-workers—lay dead or dying in the rubble of the exploded factory, and Huang would begin a year-and-a-half-long hospital stay to treat severe burns covering 70 percent of her body. Of the 47 people working in the factory that day, only three escaped with no injuries. The rest became casualties of one of China’s most dangerous and ignored industries: the manufacture of the world’s fireworks.

In recent interviews, Huang, now 29, and other former Nanyang factory workers described the workday that nearly killed them and left their lives irreparably damaged.

______


China’s fireworks factories, which produce an estimated 90 percent of the world’s fireworks, make up a perilous industry staffed mainly by rural women: Men typically work in the management offices while women, most of whom go straight to factory work out of high school, staff the lines. The industry developed in villages where men went outside of the village or often far away to work, either on farms or in factories, so women were hired to do the detail-oriented work of making the decorative explosives. They handle dangerous chemicals everyday with little prior training, and despite growing efforts by the Chinese authorities in recent years to make the industry safer, things frequently go wrong—often with lethal or life-changing consequences.


When things do go wrong, workers and their families are left with very little recourse. China’s worker-compensation law requires employers to pay into a fund reserved for injury and disability payments, but compensation is often tied up for years or not paid at all. At the same time, despite its many casualties, the industry has flown under the radar of most Chinese and international labor groups. And while the Nanyang workers were making products for foreign export, international law provides few protections. Consumer campaigns have had an impact naming and shaming companies with global brands to maintain, but fireworks brands are so unfamiliar to consumers that they provide little leverage for such campaigns. “That is why fireworks is a struggle,” says Richard Brubaker, a corporate accountability expert and founder of the Shanghai-based consulting firm Collective Responsibility. “The average U.S. consumer has no idea where they come from. There’s no brand around them they recognize.”


http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_grind/2016/07/china_makes_most_of_the_world_s_fireworks_and_bears_most_of_the_danger.html