Script

Only with your donations am I able to continue this blog. Please
consider donating.
Showing posts with label San Francisco. Show all posts
Showing posts with label San Francisco. Show all posts

Thursday, March 15, 2012

Nearly 5,000 Chickens Rescued from Factory Farm

By Alastair Bland

San Francisco - When East Bay activists learned that 50,000 chickens were on the verge of dying at an abandoned factory farm in Turlock, they rushed to Stanislaus County. The rescue effort got underway in full force on February 23 after a citizen phone call to the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency had led officials to the site of A&L Poultry, where approximately 50,000 egg-laying hens had gone without food or proper care for about two weeks. Roughly one-third of the chickens were dead by the time help arrived, while the rest were on the verge of perishing.

"If that anonymous tip hadn't come in, all of them would have been dead," said Dana Portnoy, an Oakland resident who has been volunteering for six years with Animal Place, a farm animal sanctuary in Grass Valley that helped coordinate the chicken rescue.

Officials with the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency first arrived on February 21, and though the birds were plainly distressed and starving, legal issues blocked volunteers and officials from extracting the hens immediately. "Some of the rescuers made a stink about how we were letting the chickens starve," said Annette Patton, executive director of the agency. "But there's no way you can just drive up to a farm and start stealing chickens. The birds were someone's property." But Patton was also distraught by the scene and said, "It's unspeakable to the volume of deceased animals we found."

Portnoy said it wasn't until February 23 that officials began passing injured and starving birds out of the defunct farm to waiting volunteers. Only state and county officials were allowed inside the building, where the hens had been living in "battery cages," the cramped quarters frequently cited by critics as one of the cruelest common features of factory farming.

The farm's owner, Andy Keung Cheung, had abandoned his animals because he could no longer afford to feed them. Keung Cheung's attorney, Martha Carlton-Magaña, said in a statement that "an attempt to arrange for delivery of the chickens to a third party in order to avoid the usual business practice of euthanizing the chickens resulted in an unacceptable situation A&L Poultry did not intend, and profoundly regrets." Carlton-Magaña said in an interview that the third party failed to meet an agreement and remove the chickens from the farm.

When officials entered the farm, 17,000 hens were already dead in their cages, and nearly all the rest were emaciated and close to death. A number of hens had managed to escape their cages, but then drowned in a manure catchment basin, according to Christine Morrissey, sanctuary manager of the Stockton-based rescue center Harvest Home Animal Sanctuary, where about two-dozen birds were brought for recovery.

The majority of the 4,600 rescued chickens are currently housed at a shelter in Vacaville operated by Animal Place and will eventually be put up for adoption. The effort is being hailed as the single largest mass rescue of farm animals in state history.

But nearly 30,000 chickens were euthanized, bringing the death toll to about 45,000 hens, and local activists have been collecting signatures in support of a bid to urge Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager to prosecute Keung Cheung. As of late last week, the district attorney's office said it could not comment on the case, because it was waiting for reports and information from the Stanislaus Animal Services Agency.

Patton said she hopes the district attorney will take action. "It's our allegation that [Keung Cheung] broke the law," she said. Specifically, he may have violated California Penal Code 597, which states that "every person who maliciously and intentionally maims, mutilates, tortures or wounds a living animal or maliciously and intentionally kills an animal, is guilty of an offence punishable by imprisonment."

But some are concerned that Keung Cheung may only get a slap on the wrist. "Unfortunately, the law isn't as clear when it comes to farm animals as it is with dogs and cats and other pets," said Anne Martin, an Oakland resident and a lead volunteer with Harvest Home. "If he can say that what he did was standard farm practice, then he may be off the hook."

Shani Campbell, president of the Oakland-based group United for Animals, said the starvation of the birds could have been easily avoided. "All [Keung Cheung] had to do was make a phone call to the Animal Services Agency or the Sheriff's Department, rather than just leave them to starve," she said. "Or, Harvest Home or Animal Place certainly would have stepped in."

The conditions uncovered by local activists at A&L Poultry bring to the spotlight the ethical issues surrounding factory farming of eggs and other animal products. Kim Sturla, the executive director of Animal Place, noted that factory farming practices tend to be well concealed from the public, making cases like the A&L Poultry rescue not only shocking, but also educationally valuable.

"For us, cases like these serve as a platform to educate the public about egg farming," Sturla said. Standard practice in the chicken egg industry is to clip off the beaks of newly hatched females, while the males are killed and disposed of. "The birds are then crammed into cages, and they're shitting on top of each other," Sturla noted. "The odor is unimaginable, and the only substrate they stand on is wire. Their lives are horrific from the moment they hatch from the egg. It's beyond cruelty."

Even farms billed as "free-range" tend to produce comparable suffering in similar conditions, according to critics. Many people now tout "pasture-raised eggs" as the highest standard in commercial egg production.
The 50,000 hens that inhabited A&L Poultry were just a slight fraction of the national population of egg-laying hens. According to the US Department of Agriculture, 281 million egg-laying hens were living on farms nationwide in 2010, and many millions more chickens are raised and killed for meat every day. In California, 19 million hens produce 5 billion eggs annually for human consumption. Iowa ranked first nationwide in 2010 with 51 million egg-laying hens. The vast majority live in overcrowded battery cages.

But Proposition 2, passed by voters in 2008, will take effect in 2015 and impose requirements that farmers provide relatively spacious conditions for their hens — enough room, anyway, for them to stretch, stand up, and turn around. In spite of such improvements, millions of chickens will remain the engine of a massive egg industry. Campbell with United for Animals is a vegan, as are many who assisted in the hen rescue. She believes that only a transition away from egg consumption can alleviate the suffering inherent to egg farming. "Even vegetarians who eat eggs are contributing to animal death," she said, noting that male chicks at egg "hatcheries" are killed immediately after birth.

Anyone who applies to adopt any of the rescued birds will be carefully screened, Sturla said, to avoid placing the chickens back into the hands of commercial interests. "We don't mind if people eat the eggs," she said. "We just don't want them adopting the chickens for that purpose. We want them to be pets."

Thursday, March 1, 2012

Q&A: Google to Dig Deeper into Users' Lives

Michael Liedtke

If you're amazed — and maybe even a little alarmed — about how much Google seems to know about you, brace yourself. Beginning Thursday, Google will operate under a streamlined privacy policy that enables the Internet's most powerful company to dig even deeper into the lives of its more than 1 billion users.

Google says the changes will make it easier for consumers to understand how it collects personal information, and allow the company to create more helpful and compelling services. Critics, including most of the country's state attorneys general and a top regulator in Europe, argue that Google is trampling on people's privacy rights in its relentless drive to sell more ads.

Here's a look at some of the key issues to consider as Google tries to learn about you.

Q: How will Google's privacy changes affect users?
A: Google Inc. is combining more than 60 different privacy policies so it will be able to throw all the data it gathers about each of its logged-in users into personal dossiers. The information Google learns about you while you enter requests into its search engine can be culled to suggest videos to watch when you visit the company's YouTube site.
Users who write a memo on Google's online word processing program, Docs, might be alerted to the misspelling of the name of a friend or co-worker a user has communicated with on Google's Gmail. The new policy pools information from all Google-operated services, empowering the company to connect the dots from one service to the next.

Q: Why is Google making these changes?
A: The company, based in Mountain View, Calif., says it is striving for a "beautifully simple, intuitive user experience across Google." What Google hasn't spent much time talking about is how being able to draw more revealing profiles about its users will help sell advertising — the main source of its $38 billion in annual revenue.
One reason Google has become such a big advertising network: Its search engine analyzes requests to figure out which people are more likely to be interested in marketing pitches about specific products and services. Targeting the ads to the right audience is crucial because in many cases, Google only gets paid when someone clicks on an ad link. And, of course, advertisers tend to spend more money if Google is bringing them more customers.

Q: Is there a way to prevent Google from combining the personal data it collects from all its services?
A: No, not if you're a registered user of Gmail, Google Plus, YouTube, or other Google products. But you can minimize the data Google gathers. For starters, make sure you aren't logged into one of Google's services when you're using Google's search engine, watching a YouTube video or perusing pictures on Picasa. You can get a broad overview of what Google knows about you at http://www.google.com/dashboard , where a Google account login is required. Google also offers the option to delete users' history of search activity.
It's important to keep in mind that Google can still track you even when you're not logged in to one of its services. But the information isn't quite as revealing because Google doesn't track you by name, only through a numeric Internet address attached to your computer or an alphanumeric string attached to your Web browser.

Q: Are all Google services covered by the privacy policy?
A: No, a few products, such as Google's Chrome Web browser and mobile payment processor Wallet, will still be governed by separate privacy policies.

Q: Is Google's new privacy policy legal?
A: The company has no doubt about it. That's why it's repeatedly rebuffed pleas to delay the changes since announcing the planned revisions five weeks ago. But privacy activists and even some legal authorities have several concerns.
The Electronic Privacy Information Center, a privacy rights group, sued the FTC in a federal court in an effort to force the FTC to exercise its powers and block Google's privacy changes. A federal judge ruled the courts didn't have the authority to tell the FTC how to regulate Google. The FTC says it is always looking for evidence that one of its consent orders has been violated.

Earlier this week, the French regulatory agency CNIL warned Google CEO Larry Page that the new policy appears to violate the European Union's strict data-protection rules. Last week, 36 attorneys general in the U.S. and its territories derided the new policy as an "invasion of privacy" in a letter to Page.

One of the major gripes is that registered Google users aren't being given an option to consent to, or reject, the changes, given that they developed their dependence on the services under different rules. In particular, people who bought smartphones running on Google's Android software, and signed two-year contracts to use the devices, may have a tough time avoiding the new privacy policy. They could switch to non-Google services, but those typically don't work as well on Android software. Or they could buy a different smartphone and pay an early-termination penalty.

Q: What regulatory power do government agencies have to change or amend the privacy changes?
A: The U.S. Federal Trade Commission gained greater oversight over Google's handling of personal information as part of a settlement reached last year. Google submitted to the agreement after exposing its users email contacts when it launched a now-defunct social networking service called Buzz in 2010. The consent order requires Google's handling of personal information to be audited every other year and forbids misleading or deceptive privacy changes.
Google met with the FTC before announcing the privacy changes. Neither the company nor the FTC has disclosed whether Google satisfied regulators that the revisions comply with the consent order.

Monday, February 20, 2012

San Francisco Sues U.S. Government Over Deadly Pipeline Explosion


By Noel Brinkerhoff and David Wallechinsky 
 
San Francisco - The U.S. Department of Transportation and one of its agencies is being sued by the city of San Francisco for the deadly gas pipeline explosion that occurred two years ago.
 
According to its lawsuit, the city claims the department’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) “has been shirking its duty for over a decade, if not longer” and has failed to properly maintain national safety standards and adequate oversight of pipelines. The PHMSA is also accused of not ensuring that pipelines in the state complied with federal safety standards under the Pipeline Safety Act.
 
San Francisco authorities accuse PHMSA of creating “a regulatory scheme that improperly delegates to gas pipeline operators responsibility for the safe operation and maintenance of gas pipeline facilities.”
  
The Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E) pipeline explosion occurred in San Bruno, where eight people were killed on September 9, 2010, and destroyed more than 100 homes. The lawsuit also cites another deadly PG&E natural gas line explosion in Rancho Cordova in 2008 and a non-lethal explosion in Cupertino in 2011.

Saturday, December 24, 2011

Odd Stories: Fake SanFran Doctor Finally Arrested


San Francisco - This is sheer stupidity on the end of the client, but at the same time I feel just a little bit sorry for her. In the pursuit of saving money, she went to a guy posing as a doctor (granted she didn't know he wasn't one so I'll give her a pass on that front) for liposuction. The man, Carlos Guzmangarza, ran a place called Derma Clinic and for three-thousand dollars performed the surgery. He was offering the lowest price.

Here, however, is when things should've started becoming clear to her. Guzmangarza picked the woman up at her house, which I don't see many doctors doing myself personally, drove her to the clinic, and then had her hold her IV bag for him while he smoked a cigar. Then as if things shouldn't be clearer enough for her, returned to her house a few days later with six pounds of fat and flushed it down her toilet. It wasn't until later, when her infected stomach forced her to go to a doctor, that she found out he wasn't really a doctor. Guzmangarza also treated the woman's daughter for acne by injecting an unknown solution into her face. He is facing ten felony charges, which is good, but feel free to look over this paragraph again.

Really? You couldn't tell something was wrong when the doctor offered to pick you up from your house? Nor when you held your IV bag...while smoking a cigar, or when he reappeared at your house wanting to flush six pounds of fat down your drain?

Yes I have a ton of sympathy for the woman, but it also comes with a huge amount of contempt. What she did is one of the dumbest things in the world.