Oldest known pottery found in China

What a fantastic find.

Pottery fragments found in a south China cave have been confirmed to be 20,000 years old, making them the oldest known pottery in the world, archaeologists say.

The findings, which will appear in the journal Science on Friday, add to recent efforts that have dated pottery piles in east Asia to more than 15,000 years ago, refuting conventional theories that the invention of pottery correlates to the period about 10,000 years ago when humans moved from being hunter-gathers to farmers.

The research by a team of Chinese and American scientists also pushes the emergence of pottery back to the last ice age, which might provide new explanations for the creation of pottery, said Gideon Shelach, chair of the Louis Frieberg Center for East Asian Studies at The Hebrew University in Israel.

Read the rest of this post...

Study in China links BPA exposure to brain tumors

Considering all of the exposure most of us have had to BPA products (water bottles, food packaging) this is not a pleasant study. More from Environmental Health News:

There was a positive association between BPA concentrations in urine and diagnosis of meningioma.

The patients with higher concentrations of BPA in their urine – the three groups with greater than 0.53 ng/ml – were more likely to have the brain cancer compared to those with the lower concentrations – less than 0.53 ng/mL. Specifically, those with higher concentrations were 1.4 to 1.6 times more likely to be diagnosed than patients in the group with the lowest urine concentrations.

The results also support what other studies have shown. The personal factors of gender, BMI and use of HRT influence the risk of the disease. However, when considering the link with BPA, the personal factors did not alter the results.

This means the association was consistent regardless of BMI status. There was a positive association between BPA levels in urine and meningioma among normal weight, overweight and obese participants.

Read the rest of this post...

Video: How to spriral-cut your hot dog

I admit I like the idea of it being crispier - and hot dogs do tend to warp while cooking on the grill. This is an interesting idea for Italian sausage, etc., where you'd probably lose more oil during cooking by doing this (though you might lose some moistness too).

Read the rest of this post...

Pushback on Pelosi for caving on Simpson-Bowles

Let's call this "spreading the news."

We're starting to see some pushback on Nancy Pelosi's surrender to the Simpson-Bowles "Catfood for Gran" plan.

For background, try this, something I wrote earlier. Pull-quote:

Nancy Pelosi is making quite a name for herself. Unfortunately, the name is "ex-progressive" and "former San Francisco–liberal."

Not to put too fine a point on it.

Note the twin Pelosi moves here. Within weeks of each other, she endorsed Simpson-Bowles; then she offered to Boehner that she wants to move the bar from $250,000 to $1,000,000 on the Bush Tax Cuts.

I have it on some authority that she thinks these are not surrenders, but part of a strategy. I do think she thinks she's sincere. (Read carefully, folks.)

I also think she's wrong, that she's crossed the progressive border.

Remember, this is about behavior; our goal is to change behavior of those who cross our borders.

In that spirit, here's the action:

Nancy Pelosi: Which Side Are You On?

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi has openly expressed her support for a plan similar to that produced by the Simpson-Bowles deficit commission, a plan that would ultimately cut Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid benefits while protecting the wealthy from taxes.

It's gotten worse.

Pelosi now says she also favors keeping the Bush-Obama tax cuts in place for those with incomes up to $1 million. (President Obama has said he supports keeping the tax cuts only for those below $250,000.) The Pelosi proposal would lose billions in revenue and would likely mean additional massive cuts to human needs.

Tell Congresswoman Pelosi that we will never allow the stripping of our safety net to protect the wealthy from taxes.

I'm not suggesting that you do any particular thing (I would never do that). This is just one thing you could do.

I am suggesting, if you are as horrified by Ms. Pelosi's apparent surrender to the Grand Bargain Lame Duck Train Wreck as I am, you do something.

Remember Rule 4: Do something. If that doesn't work, do something else.

No progressive is a friend of the Grand Bargain; and the Grand Bargain returns the favor.

And I'm just letting you know that you have brothers and sisters doing something as well. So let's call this one, spreading the news. This counts as good news.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius Read the rest of this post...

Study: Gulf shrimp widely contaminated with carcinogens

Via ActivistPost:

Now, a new study published in the journal Environmental Health Perspectives has revealed that the 2010 BP Gulf oil disaster resulted in widespread contamination of Gulf Coast seafood with toxic components from crude oil.1 In fact, levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) in shrimp were found to exceed the FDA’s established thresholds for allowable levels [levels of concern (LOCs)] for pregnant women in up to 53% of Gulf shrimp sampled.

Eyeballs are so over-rated.

Here's the study. Read the rest of this post...

Dear FTC, how is 503-563-0339 permitted to call my parents every hour and hang up?

And if you Google the phone number, 503-563-0339, this particular phone spammer, who goes by the Caller ID "USF," has been complained about for months.  Reportedly this spammer uses dozens of phone numbers to spam people's phones.

So how is it that they continue to get away with this when all of this information is public?

My parents have been on the Do Not Call list for years - I put them on it - and the list does not expire any more.  So they're on it.  Yet these folks (and others) keep calling.  And they're hardly exempt.  All they do is call and hang up the second you answer.  It looks to me like an attempt to figure out when you're home, then possibly they sell that database to others (it's worth something for marketing companies to know when you're home).  And if you try to call the number back you get a message claiming that this a telemarketing company and if you push 1 they'll put you on their Do Not Call list.

Yeah sure.  The national Do Not call list doesn't seem to be doing any good, but we're to believe their own list?  And in any case, my parents have an indenti-ring fax number that these people are calling - there's no way to call back on that number, even if I believed the "we'll be glad to take you off" spiel.

One of the Google results on this phone number provided a different number that you could call and get a person who would take you off this list - so I called yesterday.  Here's the post I found:

To all: You can call this telemarketer directly at 916-437-0494, 0495, or 0496 and request that they remove you from the call list. These are direct lines into the call center where they operate. Call them as ofter as they call you!! When I see them calling I get ready, and I answer the call and while the robo-call schpeel is playing I press and speed dial one of the numbers above and then press again so they can listen to "tom" talk about security systems. Create your own fun and call one of the numbers above. Thanks and enjoy.

Interestingly, when I called, the woman who answered didn't even ask any questions - she immediately said she'd take us off their list, I gave her the fax number, and voila, they called my parents and hung up again just a few minutes ago.

Interestingly, a number of the folks online say that this spammer is pitching home security systems.  Which is interesting, since we got a call the other day from a different number that was in fact pitching home security.  I told them to bug off as well.

I found in Washington, DC that when I put myself on the Do Not Call list years ago, it did get rid of the annoying calls.  I used to get six a day, now virtually none.  My friend Matt still gets a couple of calls a day.  My parents get 6-10 a day, as do their friends (a friend of mom's mentioned the same problem yesterday - wonder if they're targeting seniors?).

And I called AT&T, and they said I could add a service to block calls (they meant "pay for it," I presume - yep just checked, $7 a month plus a $5 activation fee because it's very hard for AT&T; to push a button), and that even that may not stop the calls, as they have ways around the call blocking. (Kind of calls into question AT&T;'s sincerity in addressing this problem if they charge for the solution. Incentives are a bit messed up.)

The FTC's Do Not Call list, which everyone should be on, has a link to submit complaints, but it's not clear whether those complaints go down a rabbit hole or what.  Clearly this particular company has been harassing people nationwide for months, and they're still at it.  If the RIAA can shut people down for downloading a single song, can't the FTC find a way to shut down people who serially harass people nationwide? Read the rest of this post...

Chief proponent of "Fast and Furious" scandal predicts violent insurrection against USG over SCOTUS decision

You all know, at least marginally, about the Fast and Furious scandal.  The gun issue that has the GOP voting to holder Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt.

And you may know that underlying the Far And Furious scandal is the belief by Republican members of Congress that President Obama is part of some government wide conspiracy to give guns to Mexican drug lords so that they can kill innocent American feds, and then Obama will use those murders to justify a nationwide crackdown on guns intended to eviscerate the Second Amendment once and for all.

GOP Rep. John Issa, who is taking the lead on Fast and Furious for Republicans in Congress have already publicly stated that he embraces this conspiracy theory. Other Republicans have as well:

Major Republicans, including Darrell Issa, endorse this conspiracy theory. Among those are Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), who is Chair of the House Oversight Committee and is heading up the investigation of Eric Holder. In an interview on FOX, Issa said, “very clearly, they made a crisis, and they’re using this crisis to somehow take away or limit people’s Second Amendment rights.” He also pushed the theory at an NRA convention. But Issa isn’t the only one who is buying in: former Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich just two days ago agreed with the theory. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL), Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Rep. Trent Franks (R-AZ), and many other Republicans have voiced support for this theory too.

Now, the man who started this conspiracy theory is an ex-militia blogger named Mike Vanderboegh.

And what did Vanderboegh have to say about the Supreme Court decision on health care reform?  That if health care reform is not overturned by the Supremes, he's predicting "armed insurrection" against the "tyrannical" US government - he goes on to say that he is "on record as advocating the right of defensive violence against a tyrannical regime."

In the excerpts Vanderboegh posted on his blog "which deal with the decision today," he says of a then-potential decision upholding the health care law, "You may call tyranny a mandate or you may call it a tax, but it still is tyranny and invites the same response." He further predicts the response of his ilk: "If we refuse to obey, we will be fined. If we refuse to pay the fine, we will in time be jailed. If we refuse to report meekly to jail, we will be sent for by armed men. And if we refuse their violent invitation at the doorsteps of our own homes we will be killed -- unless we kill them first. ... I am on record as advocating the right of defensive violence against a tyrannical regime."

And who else is pushing Vanderboegh's conspiracy theory? The NRA.

The NRA is driving the conspiracy theory paranoia though ads. The National Rifle Association is furthering the paranoia as a way to rally gun owners by running advertisements and a petition calling on President Obama to fire Eric Holder. The ads don’t specifically mention the gun control conspiracy, but the Executive Director of the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action is a full-throttle conspiracy believer. The NRA also threatened members of Congress who voted on the contempt charge yesterday, saying that a vote against contempt would reflect poorly on that member’s pro-gun ratings.

So to recap:

The NRA and Republican members of Congress (and a handful of Dems who voted with them, many of whom got NRA money) are doing the bidding of a somewhat-out-there conspiracy blogger who is now discussing the violent overthrow of the US government.

That's what Fast and Furious is really about.  The violent takeover of the Republican party by lunatics. Read the rest of this post...

US hospital demands patients pay before treatment

Just when you think you've heard it all, the US hospital industry finds a new way to be offensive. When my father was dying, the ambulance team was stopped from going beyond the lobby (it was a 911 call) until his insurance details could be confirmed. How compassionate.

The hospital in this NBC News story has reportedly stopped using this aggressive service, though it's likely many other hospitals around the US are still using them or else they wouldn't exist. Who would want treatment from such a hospital? Even worse, what do you do it this is your only local option?

The report from NBC is about 10 minutes, but it's an eye opener and worth watching.

One patient, a grandfather of six, told Rock Center he was hooked up to a morphine drip awaiting surgery to remove an abdominal mass at Fairview Ridges Hospital outside Minneapolis when he was asked for money.

"We don't mind paying, but don't come while I'm drugged up and I've got tubes in my nose and push on me to get it," he said. "Wheel me right to the business office, don't let me out of the hospital. But don't harass me before you try to do the surgery."

Another patient said he went to Fairview fearing he might have a heart problem. His blood pressure was soaring and he was hooked up to a heart monitor when he was asked to pay a bill of more than $490. He told Rock Center that he wondered about what kind of care he would receive if he didn't pay.

Read the rest of this post...

Feingold: Thanks to SCOTUS and Citizens United "we're in a constitutional crisis"

UPDATE: Despite the John Roberts vote on the ACA ruling, which answered the question, will the Supreme Court decide to reboot its credibility, the following is still true, in my view. Nothing has changed but the optics.
________

By now you know that in amongst the other news, the Supreme Court has slapped down Montana's challenge to its Citizens United decision.

Slapped down means slapped down. In a one-page ruling (pdf) the high court said:

The question presented in this case is whether the holding of Citizens United applies to the Montana state law. There can be no serious doubt that it does. ... The petition for certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Supreme Court of Montana is reversed. It is so ordered.

Russ Feingold on that decision (my emphasis):

"This court had one fig leaf left after this one awful decision two years ago," said the former three-term Democratic senator from Wisconsin. The justices could claim "they were politically naive or didn't know what would happen when they overturned 100 years of law on corporate contributions," he said.

But with the court's decision on Monday, Feingold told HuffPost, that's gone: "They have shown themselves wantonly willing to undo our democracy." ...

One of the most unpopular decisions in recent years, Citizens United opened the door for corporations and unions to spend freely in elections. The expansive language of the decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, led a lower court to allow individuals to pool unlimited money through groups now known as super PACs. The two rulings have led to an explosion of independent spending in the 2010 and 2012 elections, with many of the donors hidden from public view. ...

"This is one of the great turning points, not only in campaign finance but also in our country's history," Feingold said. "I believe we're in a constitutional crisis."

The article also sounds the corporatist note — that the Republican justices, as much as they are conservatives, are also an "arm of corporate America." This is quite an accusation, since it means they're violating their duty to the public:

Feingold is particularly concerned about the Supreme Court's relationship to corporate power. "What they have clearly become is a partisan arm of corporate America. This is a real serious problem for our democracy," he said.

You should note that John Roberts, in voting to uphold Obama's ACA, also voted to line the pockets of the health insurance industry, something the act was designed to do.

Several people have written that their bottom line in this Citizens United re-confirmation is, "Folks, it's over until the Gang of Five is reduced." I agree with that assessment. This is the Court saying, "Go home and deal with it. Citizens United is settled law."

I also agree that this Court is firmly in the control of the New Barons (Our Betters). It's hard to argue otherwise.

(Note — Corporate America is not the same people as the New Barons. Corporate America is just their engine. The boyz from Office Space are part of corporate America. Corporate America loots you. The New Barons loot Corporate America. Only the Barons win; everyone else, even us Office Space types, lose. It's how so much money ends up in so few hands. Don't lose that distinction.)

Lately I've been reminded of the writing of the early 1800's thinker William Hazlitt (h/t Digby for the find).

Writing about the difference between the right and the left (in the 1820s, mind you) Hazlitt wrote:

They [the right] do not celebrate the triumphs of their enemies as their own: it is with them a more feeling disputation.

They never give an inch of ground that they can keep; they keep all that they can get; they make no concessions that can redound to their own discredit; they assume all that makes for them; if they pause it is to gain time; if they offer terms it is to break them: they keep no faith with enemies: if you relax in your exertions, they persevere the more: if you make new efforts, they redouble theirs.

While they give no quarter, you stand upon mere ceremony. While they are cutting your throat, or putting the gag in your mouth, you talk of nothing but liberality, freedom of inquiry, and douce humanité [sweet humanity].

Their object is to destroy you, your object is to spare them---to treat them according to your own fancied dignity.

They have sense and spirit enough to take all advantages that will further their cause: you have pedantry and pusillanimity enough to undertake the defence of yours, in order to defeat it. It is the difference between the efficient and the inefficient; and this again resolves itself into the difference between a speculative
proposition and a practical interest.

Meet the enemy, folks. It's an open discussion what to do about it. It's not an open discussion who they are.

"Constitutional crisis" indeed. In my opinion, until SCOTUS is collapsed, expanded or changed, it's a failed and captured institution, a tool of the Billionaire's Coup.

There; said that out loud. Sue me.

GP

To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius
  Read the rest of this post...

What health care reform means to you

A neat calculator from the Washington Post that walks you through what health care reform means for you. For me, it said the following:

Your coverage:

Right now:
Your insurer cannot set a lifetime limit on benefit payouts. Any annual limits will be phased out by 2014.

Your insurer cannot cancel your plan after you get sick based on a technicality, or discriminate against your children if they have a pre-existing condition.

You may also be entitled to coverage of preventive services without out-of-pocket charges.

If you are an adult under age 26, and one or both of your parents have a health plan, they may be able to put you on it. If you have adult children you can probably keep them on your plan until they are 26.

Starting in 2014:
You will have the option of buying a health plan through your state’s exchange. Based on your income, you probably would not qualify for federal assistance to offset the cost of that plan.

Insurers cannot discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

And that's spot on. I have several pre-existing conditions, from asthma to retinal problems, that would make an insurance company shudder (remember, these are folks that consider being a woman a pre-existing condition). If I move to another state, good luck getting any insurance at all without ObamaCare, because insurance is state to state in the US - so if you move states, unless you're with a big company, you can't bring your insurance with you.

And since I work for myself, I tend to pay more than most for my coverage (in part because my employer isn't kicking in any portion of my premiums (for Congress, we kick in up to 75% of their premiums), and in part because I'm apparently very dangerous as sole individual, so they have to charge my class of people more. Thankfully, ObamaCare is requiring the insurance companies to spend 80% of their revenue on services, so BCBS was forced to reduce my premiums this year (they won't admit why, but why else could there be for them to reduce my premiums by 10% for the first time ever?)

Then there's my annual limit on prescriptions which should be outlawed by 2014 (there are some exceptions, I can't seem to figure out what they are). Currently, BCBS gives me only $1500 a year in prescriptions. That's the same amount they gave me 13 years ago when I started with them, and it's the same amount they'll give me up until the day I die, regardless of inflation. Nice people.

And if you've ever lived past the age of 40, you know that $1500 a year in prescriptions really isn't that much. My asthma drugs are currently costing me around $500 a month (it's been a bad spring for asthma). So, I've pretty much already reached my paltry $1500 a year limit, so I'm on my own for the rest of the year.

Oh, and I recently looked into getting a health savings account, or something similar, and I can't because - get this - my insurance is TOO GOOD, so I'm not permitted. So none of this is deductible unless I spend over $7000 out of my own pocket, then only the money BEYOND THAT AMOUNT is deductible.  I have no idea if this has been fixed in the law.

Do we live in a great country or what?

ObamaCare isn't solving everything - for example, it's criminal that we are continuing to let Big Pharma charge 5x the price in America for the same drugs it sells in Europe for 1/5 the cost. You see, we Americans are subsidizing low pries in Europe, and our government is in kahoots by refusing to permit the importation of drugs from abroad, and refusing to negotiate with Big Pharma like European governments do.

Still, ObamaCare is a big improvement, and it will help a lot of us. But the administration still needs to do a much better job explaining all of this. Read the rest of this post...

More banking scandals out of Wild West London

As if the latest Barclays scandal was not enough, Barclays and three other British banks are in new trouble with authorities. The political class is talking a good story, again, but we've seen it all before. There's always a lot of big talk to show the people that they're doing something though somehow the follow action never happens.

How many more times do the banks need to prove that they're untrustworthy and dangerous for society before the political class gets it? If the "three strikes and you're out" rule applied to bankers, they're all be locked up. Lucky for them, they're mostly white males with deep pockets so the rules are not the same.

More on the latest banking problem out of London via The Telegraph:

Britain’s four main high street lenders have agreed to compensate small and medium sized businesses mis-sold interest rate hedging products after the Financial Services Authority said it had found “serious failings” in the way they marketed to some customers.

Barclays, HSBC, Lloyds Banking Group and Royal Bank of Scotland have all agreed to immediately halt the sale of complex interest rate hedges to smaller businesses and have pledged to compensate potentially thousands of customers who have been hurt by the products that have left some firms with hundreds of thousands and even millions in costs they say they were never warned about.

Today, RBS (Royal Bank of Scotland) is set to be fined for the same Libor manipulation offense as Barclays, with more banks likely to be fined soon.

On a related note, Bloomberg is reporting that lawsuits related to the Barclays Libor manipulation settlement may end up costing more than the fines themselves. Once again, we've heard it all before so seeing is believing. Read the rest of this post...

JPMorgan trade loss could be $9 billion

JPMorgan can still withstand such a loss, though it does highlight the inability of the bankers to manage such huge losses. Jamie Dimon spun the bad London trade as $2 billion and for a while, many in the press repeated that line even after the loss had passed the $3 billion mark.

We're four years down the road from the banking crisis and we're still seeing horrid losses and poor management by banks. Outside of the Wall Street-DC bubble, people want this problem resolved in a way that protects taxpayers, but there's too little progress. If the supposed expert on managing risk could be so wrong, who thinks the others are doing any better?

As JPMorgan has moved rapidly to unwind the position — its most volatile assets in particular — internal models at the bank have recently projected losses of as much as $9 billion. In April, the bank generated an internal report that showed that the losses, assuming worst-case conditions, could reach $8 billion to $9 billion, according to a person who reviewed the report.

With much of the most volatile slice of the position sold, however, regulators are unsure how deep the reported losses will eventually be. Some expect that the red ink will not exceed $6 billion to $7 billion.

Nonetheless, the sharply higher loss totals will feed a debate over how strictly large financial institutions should be regulated and whether some of the behemoth banks are capitalizing on their status as too big to fail to make risky trades.

In addition, we're now seeing significant ratings downgrades within the US banking sector, Spain and now Brazil. We also know that China is facing significant economic challenges, so there's a lot to be concerned about in this market. Read the rest of this post...