Climate marches draw hundreds of thousands on Donald Trumps 100th day in office

Hundreds of thousands of demonstrators marched in cities around the country marking President Donald Trumps 100th day in office with protests against his environmental policies.

In Washington, organizers of the climate march estimated some 200,000 people showed up to march, clogging the streets and snarling traffic on a sweltering day where temperatures threatened to break records.

The marches occurred as a slew of executive orders and policy moves from the Trump Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency (along with the proposed budget for the EPA) reveal a disregard for climate science (and science in general), while pursuing a pro-business agenda that even some conservative pundits say poses health hazards for the US.

In an editorial forThe Atlantic(its worth reading the whole thing),Christine Todd Whitman, the EPA Secretary under President George W. Bush writes:

There are a number of health risks inherent to the proposed budget cuts, thanks in part to Trumps promises to leave only a little bit of federal regulations. For example, the EPA Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention runs a program that screens and tests endocrine disruptors, which are harmful chemicals that pose a threat to reproductive health and childrens growth and development. Under the Trump budget, funding for this program would be cut from $7.5 million to $445,000rendering the program inoperable and ineffective. Trump also wants to significantly cut the federal radon program to the tune of 80 percent. Radon, a naturally occurring radioactive gas, is believed to cause lung cancer and is linked to 21,000 deaths annually. An estimated one in 15 homes has high levels of the gas, and this small program promotes radon testing in homes.

Pollution poses an undeniable threat to public health, as the Supreme Court has validated. A 2013 Massachusetts Institute of Technology study reported that roughly 19,000 more people die prematurely from automobile pollution each year than die in car accidents. The same year, Harvard University researchers found that pregnant women living in areas with elevated levels of air pollution were up to twice as likely to have an autistic child, compared with women in low-pollution locations. And a new study released in January found that air pollution increases the risk and expedites the onset of dementia and other forms of cognitive decline.

Just yesterday the EPA removed pages related to climate change research from its website. In a statement explaining the changes, the EPA said that the website was being updated to reflect outdated language.

Much of that outdated language reflects the consensus of what can best be described as a supermajority of scientists, according to a December 2016 study by an energy professor from the University of Houston.

Speaking at a rally in Pennsylvania this evening, Trump said that there would be an announcement on the Administrations continued participation in the Paris Accords in the next two weeks.

Rallies werent limited to Washington as thousands of protestors also marched in Boston;


and Seattle.

Read more:

‘I have dark thoughts about my children’s autism’ – BBC News

Image copyright Getty Images

Some parents of disabled children can appear unwaveringly positive. But one mother says her children’s autism has left her with “dark thoughts” and she wishes their impairments would disappear.

“It just stops everything dead,” she says, the moment she tells anyone all three children have autism.

Christine, not her real name, loves and is proud of her children, but she says she cannot abide the pressure she feels to be “relentlessly positive” about their condition because of the restrictions it puts on all of them.

She says parents are often depicted cheerfully talking about the “breakthrough moments” and slight improvements their children make which they seem fulfilled by – but which she can’t grasp.

“I often feel there’s not really space in the autism world for a mother to say ‘I really wish this wasn’t happening, I don’t feel blessed, I don’t feel strong, I don’t feel like it’s all happening for a reason’.

“I get riled when people say well-meaning things like ‘you must be a really strong person because you wouldn’t be given more than what you can deal with’ – this just doesn’t feel like a reward, actually.”

Find out more

Listen to Christine speaking to BBC Radio 4’s iPM programme on the podcast page.

You can also hear the mother’s account in audio here.

Christine is a single mum and works as a psychiatric nurse.

Her son, 19, was diagnosed with autism aged six followed by dyspraxia and a mood disorder; her 17-year-old daughter was diagnosed with autism and ADHD in 2015; and her 14-year-old daughter was diagnosed when she was eight.

“For me, the diagnosis of my middle child was earth-shatteringly awful because I think, on reflection, I always had this notion that ‘one of them’s going to be alright’ and I found that crushing.”

Image copyright Woodland Animations

She says she has not spoken out about her thoughts before, and has changed her name to speak to the BBC for fear of the reaction she may receive from other parents who feel differently.

“There’s a celebratory notion that this is a fantastic thing,” she says, and feels that the community won’t let people be anything other than relentlessly positive.

“I love my children and I’m so proud of what they can do – but if I could take away the difficulties that they’ve got and give them different lives, then I would.”

Journalist Michael Blastland has a 22-year-old son, Joe, who lives in a residential unit with “pretty profound” autism and limited communication.

He says Joe has “character and spirit” and a “deep obsession” for Postman Pat – so much so, there are three VCRs stashed in the attic for when one breaks down.

Image copyright Michael Blastland

Blastland recognises what Christine means about feeling uncomfortable with the uptalk, but says: “I still try and hang on to these little extraordinary facets of Joe’s character and ability.”

He says the “autism pride movement” can be problematic for those who don’t assign to it – and there are also those with autism who take pride in their difference, which is “perfectly legitimate in many ways”.

But, he also says, “you cannot say that all people with autism are fine [self-sufficient]”, and as much as he loves Joe, he admits “if I could wave the wand, I’d take it away in a stroke.

“I just wish that I could say that without leaving the other people who have the same label feeling threatened.”

One person who struggles to understand Christine’s point of view is Jo Lewis, whose 12-year-old daughter Holly has autism.

It manifests itself through separation anxiety, distress at loud noises, social struggles and taking idioms like “it’s raining cats and dogs” literally.

“I saw the diagnosis as opening the door to support, but we’ve had moments of despair, we’ve cried and screamed and argued about it,” she says.

Image copyright Jo Lewis

“You have a bad moment – and then I’ll glance at the piano which she plays beautifully, and she wouldn’t be who she was if she didn’t have autism.

“Sometimes I feel guilty because other people struggle, but I would not take autism away from Holly; autism is what people make of it.”

Christine, too, recognises that as much as she despairs at the expectation of positivity, she doesn’t wish to upset others who focus on it.

“Perhaps it looks a little uncaring or a little selfish, because you’re not just selflessly embracing everything around your children,” she says, but as her children grow and their needs become more complex, the joy continues to recede.

For years, Christine’s children attended mainstream school – but it caused great distress.

They recognised they were different to their peers, which “hurt and damaged them”; her son asked for an invisibility cloak and one daughter talked of suicide. All three have since been placed in special schools.

Image copyright Reuters
Image caption Can you spot him?

She says despite working as a psychiatric nurse, which gave her “inside knowledge” into the system, she worries how their adult lives will pan out.

When her eldest son turned 18, he lost his mental health support – and Christine’s “absolute fear” is that he will “just disappear”, as he does not have the ability to contact services himself.

“No one would know if he got poorly,” she says.

“He would lie in his bed and just stop eating and drinking; he wouldn’t move and nobody would know.”

Christine says she finds it very difficult to find the positives here, but there are glimmers of joy she hangs on to.

“My eldest was very withdrawn as a youngster, he wouldn’t tolerate physical touch, there was no recognition from him that you were someone he knew.

“He ran up to the man dressed as Santa Clause and, referring to me, he said: ‘Santa Clause, that’s my Mummy’.

“It was so rare to think that he even knew who I was that I carry that in my heart.”

Produced by Beth Rose

For more Disability News, follow BBC Ouch on Twitter and Facebook, and subscribe to the weekly podcast.

Related Topics

Read more:

House punts health care vote on eve of shutdown deadline

Washington (CNN)The House of Representatives will not vote on health care this week, despite a White House attempt to revive a health care reform package ahead of President Donald Trump’s 100th day in office.

“We are not voting on health care this week,” House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy told reporters late Thursday.
Hours before a Friday deadline, Congress was working to pass a short-term spending bill to avoid a government shutdown while they worked on a broader deal to fund agencies through September. Republicans were readying to pass the week-long funding bill on their own after Democrats, who tend to back these short-term bills, threatened to oppose it if Republicans did in fact move a fresh Obamacare repeal bill.
    A top Democrat — House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer — issued a statement Thursday morning saying he would advise his fellow Democrats to oppose the one-week bill if Republicans tried to pass their latest version of health care reform. On Thursday, Republicans had reached new agreements within their own caucus to improve their chances of passing their health care bill — but ultimately decided against bringing it to the floor this week.
    The short-term government funding bill, planned for a vote Friday, must be passed by midnight to keep federal agencies open through May 5.
    House Speaker Paul Ryan said at a news conference that the House would act when Republicans feel they “have the votes” to pass their bill, though he gave no indication of a time frame.
    House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi wouldn’t directly confirm whether there was a Democratic strategy underway to block the short-term bill. She said her party was still pushing to resolve “outstanding areas of concern” in the one-week bill, but she insisted Democrats “don’t even have the power” to shut down the government.
    The uncertainty has spread renewed alarm on Capitol Hill after tensions had already eased earlier in the week. Following President Donald Trump’s decision to scrap certain demands over health care spending and the proposed border wall, progress appeared to be in the works.
    In anticipation of the one-week spending bill from the House, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tried to get unanimous consent agreement Thursday night to pass it ahead of time.
    But, playing some hardball, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer objected.
    He said Republicans must first agree to remove “poison pill” riders — or amendments that have little-to-no bipartisan support — in the long-term bill before getting an agreement to pass a short-term bill. He did this to try to put pressure on GOP negotiators to cut a deal, according to a Democratic leadership aide.
    While talks will continue, senators who wanted to leave town for the weekend will have to stay in Washington Friday and possibly vote on this short-term bill sometime before the midnight deadline.
    In the meantime, negotiators in both parties are close to an agreement on a much larger, longer-term spending package that would wrap several funding measures for different agencies into one giant bill.
    The goal is to pass the omnibus bill during the one-week extension, but differences remain and leaders of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees are still haggling over the final points — with input from bipartisan leadership and the White House.
    Ryan said Thursday he was “confident” the government would keep running, but placed any threat of a shutdown on Democrats.
    “I would be shocked that they’d want to see a government shutdown,” Ryan said referring to Democrats during a news conference when asked about Hoyer’s comments.
    The speaker blamed Democrats for the lack of a spending deal, saying they were “dragging their feet” and in some cases failed to show up for meetings about the spending bill.
    At about the same time Hoyer made his threat, Schumer was on the floor praising the talks and vowing to work to keep the government open.
    “There are a few remaining issues to be settled,” he said. “But I believe that there we are close to a final agreement. Our side will continue to work in good faith to see that an agreement is reached to keep the government open by tomorrow’s deadline.”
    Like Pelosi, Schumer also wouldn’t say whether he was pushing the same threat as Hoyer. He said he doesn’t believe Republicans should try to rush “through a health care bill in the dark of night,” but when pressed whether he’d urge Senate Democrats to try to block the short-term bill, he demurred.
    “We’re not up to that yet,” he said in a press conference, holding his hand up.
    At the same time, Trump unleashed a tweetstorm Thursday putting pressure on Democrats and blasting them for what he described as untenable demands on a range of issues from national parks to health benefits for coal miners.
    While waiting for a deal to be struck, Republican senators munched on lazy lobster and Maine potatoes with blueberry pie for dessert at a luncheon in the Capitol put on by Maine’s Susan Collins. Republican senators rotate sponsoring a lunch for their colleagues — each with food themes from their states — and Collins’ lobster offering is considered one of the most popular. Forty-three of the 52 Republican senators were on hand.

    Read more:

    CNN/ORC Poll: At 100 days, Trump approval rating shows no sign of growth

    WASHINGTON (CNN)As the 100-day mark of Donald Trump’s presidency approaches, a new CNN/ORC poll finds the President reaches this milestone holding on to the lowest approval rating of any newly-elected president at this stage, amid sharp partisan divides and a failure to capitalize on post-election strengths.

    Overall, 44% say they approve of Trump’s handling of the presidency, 54% disapprove. That’s about the same as in each of the two previous CNN/ORC polls taken after his inauguration. That 44% marker puts Trump last among approval ratings for newly-elected presidents at the 100-day point since modern polling began, a trendline that runs back to Dwight Eisenhower. Trump is last by a significant margin, trailing Bill Clinton’s previous low by 11 points.
    The poll finds declining ratings for Trump’s handling of two issues that have been top priorities since he took office — health care and immigration. About 6 in 10 Americans disapprove of Trump’s handling of each of those issues, and both have tilted more negative since early March. His numbers have held steady, however, on his handling of foreign affairs, national security and the role of commander-in-chief, after taking several high-profile actions on those fronts during the last month. Assessing his overall use of the military, most (52%) say he’s used it responsibly since taking office.
      Two measures of the country’s progress have shown signs of improvement since Trump took the helm. Most, 54%, now say things in the country are going well, up from 46% in February. That matches last year’s high of 54%, reached in October. Likewise, almost 6 in 10 now say economic conditions in the country are good, an uptick compared with mid-January, and the highest mark on that question since May 2007. Behind the overall increases in these numbers, however, there have been sharp partisan shifts, with the share of Democrats offering a positive assessment dropping since Barack Obama left office while the share of Republicans on the positive side has risen rapidly.
      Still, majorities offer negative impressions of Trump’s presidency so far across a range of questions about his handling of the job.
      Most say he hasn’t paid enough attention to the nation’s most important problems (55%) and that he isn’t working hard enough to be effective (51%). They say he’s done a poor job of assembling a team of top advisers in the White House (56%) and keeping his campaign promises (52%). Further, 61% say world leaders don’t have much respect for him and 52% that his approach has unnecessarily put the country at risk.
      But looking ahead, about a third of all adults say they aren’t sure their current judgment of Trump will hold (including 20% who currently disapprove and 11% who approve). That suggests there’s room for Trump to gain ground, but very little in this poll indicates that he’s attracted new supporters since taking office on January 20.
      Trump’s favorability rating is stagnant and negative — 45% have a favorable view, 53% unfavorable. At the same time, Trump’s numbers across key personal attributes have dipped since a post-election boost that appears to be the closest thing Trump had to a honeymoon. Fewer see Trump as honest now (37%) than said so in November (41%). He’s fallen 6 points on being an effective manager of the government (from 50% to 44%), 5 points on uniting the country (from 43% to 37%) and 4 points on empathy (from 46% to 42%). And a previous even divide on whether Trump can bring the kind of change the country needs now tilts narrowly negative (51% say he can’t, 48% that he can).
      Fewer now say they hold deep confidence in Trump to handle the economy (35%, down from 40% in November) or appoint the best people to office (27%, down from 32%). But confidence has held roughly steady on handling foreign affairs (27% now and in November) and providing real leadership for the country (31% now vs. 33% in November).
      The political and demographic divisions that drove the 2016 presidential campaign have hardened into chasms in perceptions of Trump: Among Republicans, 85% approve, while just 8% of Democrats agree. Most men, 51%, approve, while only 38% of women do. Whites generally approve (52%) and non-whites mostly disapprove (68%), but among whites there’s a deep gap by education, with 59% of those who do not have college degrees saying they approve vs. 38% of whites who hold at least a Bachelor’s degree. In rural areas, 58% approve, but just 33% of urbanites approve.
      Trump’s overall strength among Republicans masks some declining ratings among his own partisans. While most Republicans do continue to hold positive views of Trump regardless of the question, much of his decline on several of these items stems from a drop among Republicans.
      In November, 82% of Republicans said they had a lot of confidence in Trump to handle the economy, that’s fallen 10 points.
      Likewise, GOP confidence in Trump’s ability to appoint the best people to office has dropped 13 points, while confidence in his ability to provide leadership is down 9. The percentage of Republicans who think Trump will unite the country has fallen from 81% to 68%, that he can effectively manage government from 93% to 85%, and that he cares about people like you from 91% to 81%.
      The CNN/ORC poll was conducted by telephone April 22-25 among a random national sample of 1,009 adults. Results for the full sample have a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points, it is larger for subgroups.

      Read more:

      Government shutdown: Trump shows ‘reasonableness’ on border wall

      (CNN)Congressional Republicans have privately proposed a funding bill that does not include money for the border wall, a Congressional source told CNN on Tuesday, a sign congressional Republicans are willing to buck the President to avoid a government shutdown.

      But there are still obstacles to passing a spending bill by Friday, sources tell CNN.
      Congressional negotiators are now trying to work through another major issue: what to do about cost-sharing reduction payments, money the government pays to health insurers to reduce the out-of-pocket costs of low-income people. The payments are a major way Democrats ensured low-income people would be covered under the Affordable Care Act, but with a new Republican administration, their future is uncertain.
        White House budget director Mick Mulvaney said on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” that Trump would be willing to sign a bill without money for the border wall and stave off the threat of a government shutdown.
        “We just thought that it would be a good first step to get these things that everybody agrees on and take that idea of a government shutdown off the table,” Mulvaney said.
        White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus said Tuesday evening that Trump is “showing some reasonableness on the wall and border security” in an effort to avoid a government shutdown.
        “As long as we get a significant amount of border security money for Secretary (John) Kelly to do his job between now and September and continue the conversation on more money for the physical wall itself, it’s something that the President made clear he’s willing to talk about,” Priebus told CNN and reporters from several news organizations.
        In his West Wing office, Priebus touted the administration’s accomplishments in the countdown to the first 100 days of the Trump presidency. He said the President’s flexibility on funding for his signature border wall put Democrats “on their heels.” He did not address the mixed messages sent throughout the day from top administration officials about whether the President would accept a spending measure without funding for the border wall with Mexico.
        “I think that, obviously, was a bit of a surprise to some of the Democrats, who now have to calculate whether or not they can fashion some fake controversy for us to fight over to shut the government down and blame us,” Priebus said.
        On CNN, Mulvaney said he hoped that would be enough to keep the government running, but had yet to hear back from Congressional Democrats. He also said Democrats had made their request on Obamacare subsidies too late in the negotiating process.
        “They dropped this Obamacare bailout, these insurance company payments, about two weeks ago,” Mulvaney said. “These are things they’ve brought to the table very late.”
        Without the payments, health insurers would likely pull out of the Obamacare marketplace and could leave many Americans without a choice of insurers, but the payments are politically fraught. They are the subject of a lawsuit between House Republicans and the Obama administration that President Donald Trump inherited. Trump has waffled over whether Republicans should make them at all, even as Republican leaders on Capitol Hill have signaled they are necessary to stabilize the insurance market.
        Democrats want assurances in the spending bill that Republicans will continue making the payments. A senior Democratic aide told CNN that “the position of House and Senate Democratic negotiators is that the omnibus must include the CSR language.”
        Insurers are also desperate to get some clarity on the issue and make sure the administration continues making the payments.
        But, Republicans argue that the payments are part of mandatory spending and therefore shouldn’t be part of the negotiations.
        The CSR payments are just the latest snag to roil the spending negotiations. There is a growing possibility on Capitol Hill that lawmakers may need to fall back on a week-long funding bill to avoid a shut down and keep the negotiations moving forward.
        On Tuesday afternoon Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell remained coy about what he would do.
        “I don’t want to start talking about a short-term CR on a Tuesday. We’re hoping to reach an agreement in the next few days on how to process the entire bill through Sept. 30, and I don’t want to speculate about whether that can actually clear this week,” Sen. Mitch McConnell told reporters Tuesday afternoon.
        Over the recess, Republicans and Democrats worked carefully to craft a must-pass spending bill that all parties could agree on and could be signed by the President, but the delicate negotiations have hit a few roadblocks in recent days.
        With just days to go before the government runs out of money, Trump’s mixed messages on a border wall, sources tell CNN, may not ultimately doom the bill, but they certainly caused consternation on Capitol Hill.
        “The President and his advisers are every day, I think learning new lessons about how delicate and complicated this process is. And, it’s a whole lot more art and balance than it is science,” one Republican senator said noting that it will be imperative to watch the administration over the next few days.
        “Let’s see how the White House deals with the next day or so,” the member said. “Either we come to an agreement or don’t, but they seem to be working now to get an agreement.”
        The President continued to stand by his promise to build the wall Tuesday afternoon, though he did not specify when it would happen after being grilled by reporters.
        “The wall’s going to get built, folks,” Trump said at the White House, when asked if he’d sign a continuing resolution without funding for his border wall. “In case anybody has any questions, the wall is going to get built.”
        When asked when the wall would be built, Trump said, “Soon. We’re already preparing. We’re doing plans, we’re doing specifications, we’re doing a lot of work on the wall, and the wall is going to get built.”
        It’s not unusual for the White House to have a stake in the legislative agenda or try to influence it, but with a spending bill deadline only three days away, the confusion over the border wall was a complicating factor.
        Sen. Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, said Trump’s interest in legislating is a good thing, but he did offer a warning.
        “He’s put a focus on border security unlike any other president. That’s a good thing. Just don’t overplay your hand,” Graham said.

        Read more:

        India facing another summer of deadly heat

        New Delhi (CNN)India is facing another record hot and potentially deadly summer.

        Hundreds of people died last year as swaths of the country were struck by drought amid temperatures as high as 51 degrees Celsius (124 degrees Fahrenheit).
        That followed a 2015 heat wave that left more than 2,300 people dead.
          The Indian Meteorological Department predicts that this summer will see an average temperature increase of 1 degree in some of the hottest parts of the country such as Rajasthan and Maharashtra states, which as of April were already seeing highs of over 45 C (113 F).
          New Delhi, India’s capital, hit 43.7 C on April 18 — the city’s hottest day that month since 2010.
          An average increase of one degree over three months is “substantial,” said CNN meteorologist Taylor Ward. It will result in higher temperatures for longer periods of time and more potentially deadly heat waves.


          While India is scrambling to prepare for the hot weather, experts say the task is complicated by multiple overlapping levels of local and state government with responsibility for the issue.
          Moves taken since 2015 have paid off, said K. J. Ramesh, director general of the India Meteorological Department (IMD), pointing to a sharp drop in heat deaths in 2016, compared with the year before.
          “In 2015, the mortality was very high. But with just a little response from the states in 2016, the mortality was reduced by half,” said Ramesh. “This year we want to see that all states are working with us.”
          Various states and municipalities have introduced early warning systems, public awareness campaigns and increased training for medical professionals, according to Dileep Mavalankar, an expert at the India Institute of Public Health (IIPH).
          But he warned that the apparently lower figures for heat deaths in 2016 were likely a result of “gross under-reporting.”
          “There’s no systematic way of reporting a heatstroke death,” Mavalankar said.
          Anup Srivastava, a consultant with the Indian National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), said that while 11 states have prepared plans for this year’s heat wave, many more have not, and the NDMA lacks the ability to compel local governments to act.

          More to do

          Despite all the challenges, public health researchers and policy experts are optimistic.
          A meeting held by the NDMA and IMD in March in an attempt to drum up support from local officials was widely attended, said Nehmat Kaur, a development policy economist with the Natural Resources Defense Council in India.
          “Where we are today is absolutely commendable as opposed to three years ago,” she said. Then, the IMD did not send any weather warnings to state governments about the heat.
          But Lipika Nanda, a regional IIPH director, said that gaps remain, chief among which is a more finely-tuned prediction method that would allow states to better know when heat alerts are needed.
          At present, the threshold temperature for an alert in the eastern state of Odissa is higher than that at which deaths have occurred in the past, creating a risk that people will not protect themselves in potentially fatal heat, she said.
          Critical temperatures also vary by geography, Nanda said. In Odissa, her team found more deaths in coastal regions than inland, making a statewide, one-size-fits-all alert less useful.
          With temperatures already reaching 45 C in parts of India, and on the rise, the pressure is on to avoid another deadly summer.

          Read more:

          YouTube says it fixed the problem with Restricted Mode that was filtering LGBTQ+ content

          YouTube today claims to have fixed an issue with its service that was causing it to incorrectly filter content in Restricted Mode andhiding a large selectionof LGBTQ+ videosas a result. The company had come under fire last month when it was discovered that users who turned on Restricted Mode a setting that allows YouTube users to filter out the sites more mature content were no longer able to see a number of innocuous videos referencing same-sex relationships.

          The intention of Restricted Mode is to offer a more family-friendly version of YouTube thathides videos that include adult content including those that focus on subjects like health, politics and sexuality that arent appropriate for children.

          But the feature was not working properly, having gone so far as to hide videos like a wedding ceremony,for example.

          One YouTuber, Rowan Ellis, posted a video about the issue titled YouTube is Anti-LGBT?to bring attention to the problem, and hashtags like #YouTubeRestricted and #YouTubeIsOver erupted across Twitter as more users began reporting their own videos were also hidden, along with others about LGBTQ+ topics.

          YouTube in Marchadmitted and apologized for the error, addressing the community via a blog post that explained how Restricted Mode works. There, it promised to do a full audit of its systems to see whatwas going wrong.

          The company said at the time that the feature isnt working the way it should, and added were sorry and were going to fix it.

          Today, YouTube says it has completed its investigation and fixed an issue on the engineering side that was incorrectly filtering videos.

          As a result, 12 million additional videos are now available in Restricted Mode, including hundreds of thousands featuring LGBTQ+ content.

          It has also addressed another issue with YouTubes flagging system, and is now offering a form that allows creators and viewers to alert YouTube when a video is inappropriately excluded from Restricted Mode via itsautomated systems. That way, if a similar problem occurs again even in other categories of videos users and creators have a formal meansof reaching YouTube.

          The new blog post details how and when videos are filtered in general, explaining that it removes videoscontaining discussions of drug use and abuse, detailed conversations about sex and sexuality, graphic violence or events relatedto terrorism, war, crime and political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury.

          In the area of sex and sexuality, YouTube says that it will allow some educational, straightforward conversations about sexual education in Restricted Mode, but admits this is a particularly difficult category to filter.

          The problem on this front is broader than YouTube filtering LBGTQ+ content, in some cases, because parents have varying viewpoints (particularly in the U.S.) about how much educational material aboutsex a child should have access to at all just seethe ongoing controversies about sex education in schools as an example.

          The company does not detail what engineering problem was incorrectly flagging videos, but it does lay out a vision statement for how it wants Restricted Mode to operate.

          It says, simply, that YouTube Restricted Modeshould not filter out content belonging to individuals or groups based on certain attributes like gender, gender identity, political viewpoints, race, religion or sexual orientation.

          Read more:

          It’s the worst possible time for ‘Girlboss’ on Netflix

          Britt Robertson as Nasty Gal's Sophia Amoruso in 'Girlboss.'
          Image: Karen Ballard/netflix

          When Netflix signed on for Girlboss, it probably sounded like a great idea. Feminism, fashion, and San Francisco? We were about to have our first female president, so what could go wrong?

          When the show starts streaming on Friday, things will be a little different. Not only are we living in Trump’s America, but Nasty Gal, the multi-million-dollar startup the show was based on, is bankrupt. The soul-searching of the feminist movement post-election has caused more people to realize that feminism as used by businesses to sell their products, no matter how cool, is at least an incompatible match, if not an entirely hypocritical one.

          Girlboss is fictional. The show, based on the 2014 book #Girlboss by Nasty Gal founder Sophia Amoruso, follows a 23-year-old, shoplifting, aimless version of Amoruso who can’t keep a job and has an epiphany when she makes hundreds selling a $9 thrift store leather jacket on eBay. Through the series’ 13 episodes she steals a rug, eats her boss’s sandwich, launches an eBay store, dates a drummer, goes on a worse version of the San Francisco tour from The Princess Diaries, and eventually reaches the early days of Nasty Gal.

          As a TV show, Girlboss has its own problems character, story, and all that. But it’s also arriving at the absolute worst time.

          Nasty Gal, launched in 2006 as Amoruso’s vintage eBay store that grew into an ecommerce success story with $300 million in sales, filed for bankruptcy in November. Before that, the company had two rounds of layoffs and was hit with a lawsuit alleging the site fired women when they got pregnant. On the fashion side of things, the once edgy site faced a slew of more affordable, teen-friendly competitors like Tobi and Missguided.

          Weeks before the show debuted, the similarly buzzy (albeit style-wise, very different) ModCloth was bought by the less-than-feminist Walmart. Before that, Thinx founder Miki Agrawal stepped down from her prominent role as the period underwear startup’s CEO, kicking off a barrage of stories about her company’s inappropriate work environment and a sexual harassment complaint from a former employee.

          Not to mention, our president is Donald Trump, a result that has inspired a re-evaluation of feminism’s aims as a political movement and whether a version of feminism that centers its praise on individual women who make the Forbes list has any use anymore (or ever did).

          If Amoruso’s #Girlboss (the book) were just a memoir, its television adaptation might be able to skate by as a period piece, capturing a particular mid-2000s moment in fashion and Silicon Valley. But #Girlboss was also a manifesto about how to be a feminist success, just like Amoruso. Since stepping down as Nasty Gal’s CEO in 2015, Amoruso has leaned into her #Girlboss brand. She published a second book, the “lushly illustrated embodiment of the collective spirit of the Nasty Gal brand, Sophias own personal brand, and girlbosses everywhereNasty Galaxy, in 2016.

          Even with the disclaimer that appears before every episode of the Netflix show “what follows is a loose telling of true events… real loose” something about the show just doesn’t sit right. A story that glorifies startup success found through a particular kind of male-inspired determination, with a title that’s always been connected to some sort of feminism, is unsettling in 2017. Crazy Ex-Girlfriend co-creator Rachel Bloom released a music video at a Vanity Fair conference on women entrepreneurs gently mocking the many flaws in the “Girlboss” idea. That just so happened to take place the day before the Netflix show’s debut.

          This all isn’t entirely Girlboss‘s fault. The show’s creators, who have emphasized that the show is fictional, couldn’t have known that their project would arrive in this political moment, or after a rush of feminist startup failures. In the alternate timeline where Hillary Clinton won (maybe helped by Nasty Gal’s “Nasty Woman” t-shirts), the show would probably feel fine, I guess, even if Nasty Gal were still bankrupt.

          The issue isn’t that the protagonist is unlikeable although she is, which is kind of the point. That’s fine! It’s just that for anyone who has any idea about Girlboss‘s real-world origins, it’s impossible to watch the show without remembering that origin story and its eventual disappointments.

          Girlboss ends with Sophia launching the real, independent Nasty Gal. Maybe by season two, we’ll all be able to separate the show’s narrative from where its inspiration ended up.

          WATCH: Lady Gaga FaceTimed with Prince William to discuss a very important issue

          Read more:

          Two-thirds of Americans support gun limits in public places study

          At least 64% of those surveyed do not support carrying guns in places such as schools and college campuses, study finds as states move to ease restrictions

          Two-thirds of Americans believe that guns should be restricted in many public places, according to a study published on Thursday.

          The study, by a group of leading public health researchers, found that at least 64% of those surveyed did not support carrying guns on college campuses, in places of worship, government buildings, schools, bars or sports stadiums. Even among gun owners, a majority did not approve of guns in bars or in schools. The survey published in the American Journal of Public Health comes as a number of states have passed laws to expand where guns can be carried in public.

          Thats an important finding because it goes against the general trend of what lawmakers are doing, said Julia Wolfson, a professor of public health at the University of Michigan and one of the studys co-authors.

          Already in 2017, Arkansas has passed a bill allowing guns on college campuses, in government buildings, and in bars. Georgias governor, Nathan Deal, is considering a proposal that would allow concealed weapons at colleges. And state legislators in New Hampshire, North Dakota, and Iowa have passed so-called constitutional carry bills, eliminating permitting requirements for carrying concealed weapons.

          The new findings by researchers at Harvard University, Northeastern University, and Johns Hopkins University are the latest in a set of studies that are painting the most definitive portrait of American gun ownership in two decades.

          The authors asked nearly 4,000 respondents whether they thought people should be allowed to bring firearms into nine public places: restaurants, schools, college campuses, bars, government buildings, sports stadiums, retail stores, service settings such as barber shops, and places of worship.

          Only 9.4% of respondents said they supported allowing guns in all nine public places. Restaurants, service settings, and retail stores were the only locations in which more than 30% of respondents said that people should be allowed to carry firearms.

          The survey was conducted online in 2015 on behalf of the academics by GfK, a market research company, as part of a larger inquiry into the habits and attitudes of American gun owners. The survey, which oversampled for veterans and gun owners, asked respondents to specify if they owned a firearm or lived in a household with one.

          Support for carrying guns in public was higher among gun owners than among those who did not own firearms.

          A majority of gun owners surveyed supported carrying guns in restaurants, service settings, and retail establishments. But three out of four gun owners said they did not approve of carrying guns in bars, and two-thirds said they did not feel firearms should be allowed in schools.

          The survey found that support for guns in public places did not vary by region of the country. Controlled for gun-owning status, respondents who live in the south, where many states freely permit carrying guns in public, were no more supportive of the practice than respondents in the north-east, where gun laws are generally stricter.

          Two of the studys co-authors, Deborah Azrael of Harvard University and Matthew Miller of Northeastern University, conducted a similar survey on attitudes to guns in public in 1999. Generally, Americans have become more accepting of guns in public places over the last 18 years: while in 1999 just 4% of respondents said they supported guns on college campuses, 22.5% now approve of campus carry.

          But the authors point out that the different language used could account for that change. The earlier questionnaire asked how respondents would feel about people in your community carrying in select public places. The new survey asked about attitudes toward people who are authorized to carry firearms in your community, which in some states states requires training and approval from law enforcement.

          Its difficult to account for the growing acceptance of guns in public, the authors said. Its the $64,000 question, said Azrael. Whats happened in the past 15 years? Many more laws have made it possible to carry guns anywhere. More people own handguns than did in the past. It wouldnt surprise me if they also wanted to carry them more places.

          In the nearly two decades between the surveys, many states have made laws around carrying guns in public more permissive. In 2000, seven states had an outright ban on carrying concealed weapons in public, and only Vermont allowed its residents to carry a gun without a permit. Now, all 50 states allow some form of concealed carry, and a dozen states have scrapped their permitting requirements for carrying firearms.

          And in Congress, lawmakers could soon consider a proposal that would dramatically alter where concealed weapons are allowed in the country. Under legislation filed by congressman Richard Hudson, a North Carolina Republican, states that set high bars for concealed carry licenses would be compelled to welcome armed visitors from any state that recognizes its residents right to concealed carry. As written, the bill would allow someone who lives in a state such as Kansas, with no permitting requirement, to carry a gun in a state like New York, which has very strict standards.

          The proposal is the top legislative priority of the National Rifle Association, a leading donor to Donald Trumps campaign.

          The political conversation around guns has been dominated by the gun lobby, Wolfson said. Despite that fact, Wolfson added that she and her colleagues were surprised that there was such low support for carrying guns in public places.

          Read more:

          9 Herbs For High Blood Pressure – Foods That Reduce Blood Pressure

          Lower Your High Blood Pressure Quickly & Naturally Within Days

          The New High Blood Pressure Healing Discovery!


          Discover The 100% NATURAL Remedies Your Doctors
          Hope You’ll NEVER FIND OUT.

          Click Here To Find Out More About The Great Benefits Of Detorex





          To learn more about the health benefits of food, visit:

          Here are 9 herbs that may have the potential to assist with high blood pressure.

          DISCLAIMER: This video is for educational and informational purposes only. While we have tried to ensure that the information is sound and accurate, we cannot guarantee its accuracy. The information in this video should not be substituted for professional medical advice and opinions. If you are experiencing any ailments, serious or otherwise, always seek professional medical treatment and advice.