Mediaboss Marketing

Local elected and community leaders are denouncing what they're calling the "Death Star" bill legislation they say would strip the city and county of its power to enforce local laws protecting its residents.

House Bill 2127 is being debated Tuesday on the House Floor and it's getting backlash from local officials across the state and in the Houston-area. The bill was filed by Republican State Representative Dustin Burrows of Lubbock and leaders are concerned that the bill limits the authority that the City of Houston and Harris County would have to enforce some laws and would give more control to the state.

The bill would prevent local governments from regulating changes in state codes such as agriculture, finance, insurance, labor, natural resources and occupations.

"This bill is a hostile and sweeping power grab by partisan state officials designed to decimate our basic ability to govern ourselves at the local level, to disenfranchise Houstonians, and to block the passage of policies that improve the lives of working people and are popular with Houstonians," said Hany Khalil, Executive Director of the Texas Gulf Coast Area Labor Federation.

Khalil said the bill is an example of years-long efforts of Texas Republican lawmakers trying to gain control of local governments. He said under Republican leadership, community concerns like flooding and environmental issues have been neglected and the bill is a bad idea.

"HB 2127 is an unacceptable infringement on our right to have a say in how the places we live and work are governed," he said. "And so I want to encourage each and every Houstonian to take a minute today to learn about this dangerous bill and to act to make your voice heard by calling your state representative and ask [them] to vote no on HB 2127."

State Rep. Dustin Burrows said his bill "provides the regulatory stability and certainty that enables business owners to expand their businesses to other cities within Texas with more consistency, creating more jobs and prosperity in the process."

He also added, "It actually gives local governments a hand by giving them a simple reason why they won't, in fact, be bringing to a vote the countless issues that activists have been harassing them to pass locally."

Burrows said the bill does not stop local governments from addressing natural or man-made disasters, unsafe waste storage, short-term rentals, towing and impounding, water restrictions, uncontrolled burns, backyard fire displays, unsafe outdoor festivals, and open containers.

Harris County Precinct 2 Commissioner Adrian Garcia said if passed, the bill creates even more problems for the city and the county.

"These state bills that have been considered would be a total power grab," he said. "They would preempt our ability to serve people in a manner that is tailored to the local challenges that we face."

Garcia said the state's track record on decision making has not always been valid compared to the local level.

"When Governor Abbott suggested during Hurricane Harvey, that we evacuate millions of people it demonstrated that he had no understanding of the danger that a massive evacuation could cause for millions of people."

Governor Greg Abbott is in support of the bill.

See the article here:
Death Star bill in Texas House would strip power from local officials, critics say - Houston Public Media

4/18/2023

Over 500,000 gallons of fuel on the way to Southeast Florida

In response to the increasing demand for fuel in Southeast Florida after damages to Port Everglades slowed fuel distribution, the State Emergency Response Team (SERT) has deployed over 500,000 gallons of fuel to Southeast Florida. The first set of trucks are estimated to arrive at commercial stations tonight, with the remaining arriving on site by tomorrow, Wednesday, April 18. To support fueling operations as Port Everglades works to de-water fuel racks and get operations back online for distributing gas and diesel fuel, the SERT has been pulling fuel from Port Canaveral and Tampa since Friday, April 14.

Executive Director Kevin Guthrie requested four Individual Assistance (IA) and four Public Assistance (PA) teams from FEMA to conduct in-person joint Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDA) in Broward County. Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) Recovery staff have deployed and are on-scene to assist with these assessments. Information gathered from PDAs will determine what federal assistance may be made available for impacted residents.

Over the weekend, the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) coordinated mission requests to assist with flood recovery efforts in Ft. Lauderdale, Hollywood, and Dania Beach. At the request of Broward County, the SERT deployed over 20 flood mitigation assets to impacted areas including industrial vacuum trucks and water pumps. FDEM remains in constant communication with local partners and stands ready to provide additional state support as requested.

In response to the significant flooding in southeast Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has issued Executive Order 23-65 declaring a State of Emergency in Broward County. The State Emergency Operations Center remains activated at a Level 2 in response to Hurricanes Ian and Nicole, Mass Migration, and unprecedented flooding in southeast Florida.

The State Emergency Response Team has taken the following actions:

Other state efforts include:

Department of Transportation

Florida Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission

Florida Department of Economic Opportunity

Department of Environmental Protection

Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

Department of Health

Agency for Health Care Administration

Department of Children and Families

Department of Elder Affairs

Department of Education

Continue reading here:
20230418 Florida Division of Emergency Management Issues ... - Florida Disaster

It's going to be more difficult for Arkansas teens to share selfies on Instagram. The state's Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders (R) this week signed a law requiring young people to get their parent's permission before starting a social media account, ABC News reports. "While social media can be a great tool and a wonderful resource, it can have a massive negative impact on our kids," Sanders said. Utah has already passed a similar law, and other states may soon follow.

ADVERTISEMENT: Article continues below

Why is this happening? There are real worries about teens' well-being."There is substantial evidence that American teenagers have experienced a serious decline in their mental health over the past few years," Mike Bebernes writes at Yahoo. And there is a growing sometimes heated debate about whether social media sites are the culprit. New York magazine quotes psychologist Jean M. Twenge: "The sudden, sharp rise in depressive symptoms occurred at almost exactly the same time that smartphones became ubiquitous and in-person interaction plummeted." For social media critics, that doesn't seem like a coincidence.

In fact, researchers say, social media can affect the chemistry of still-developing brains. Those apps have "the potential to alter youths' neural development, since our brains develop in response to the environment we live in," the American Psychological Association's Mitch Prinstein told the Senate Judiciary Committee in February. But does that mean that state governments should intervene to restrain kids from spending all their time online instead of with real-life friends?

Other states should follow Arkansas and Utah, Leana S. Wen writes at The Washington Post: "Moms and dads need to parent in the digital world just as we do in the physical world." There are some drawbacks to such social media restrictions. Kids in marginalized communities like minority and LGBTQ teens could find it harder to find their people online if they first have to get a parent's permission. And "enforcement is an issue." But for the most part, parents "want to know who our children's friends are and how they spend their time together." That responsibility doesn't go away when kids are online.

ADVERTISEMENT: Article continues below

"These bills will likely face considerable constitutional challenges," Jay Caspian Kang writes at the New Yorker.How you feel about the law depends on if you think that social media sites are an important part of "the national conversation," or if you believe the "platforms are addictive productslike cigarettes" that kids need to be protected from. Parents can start by setting a better example and weaning themselves off of Twitter and Facebook. We "may just have to do the unthinkable and rip the screens out of children's hands and our own."

Not everybody is comfortable with that idea. "The proposed solution of banishing millions of prolific users from cyberspace is an overcorrection, and an unconstitutional one at that," Charles Brandt writes at the Orange County Register. Teens are entitled to First Amendment protections, allowed to seek out information and express themselves on social media sites. Sure, "excessive social media use detracts from the mental health of minors," but the platforms also give youngsters a "unique, rich, and effective way to express themselves."

More states may follow Arkansas and Utah. Wisconsin and Iowa lawmakers are considering similar bills. "We have to give our parents a fighting chance and right now they are electronically, technologically outgunned," says Wisconsin Republican Rep. David Steffen. Virginia legislators, on the other hand, have dismissed social media legislation. "Trying to prevent people from trying to see things on the internet is like standing on the beach and trying to stop the tide from coming in," one state senator argued.

ADVERTISEMENT: Article continues below

But social media restrainers may not need a law to discourage youngsters from social media use. "For Gen-Z, social media has always been a given," Teen Vogue points out, but a number of "influencer" parents are pulling back, part of a "seeming tide change toward protecting the privacy of children." And kids who were raised as featured characters on their parents' social media sites are warning others not to repeat the mistake. "Your child will never be normal," one youngster lamented. "I never consented to being online."

It's not clear how well the new laws will actually work. The New Republic reports that the Arkansas law is incomplete: "It seems a lot of apps, like TikTok and Snapchat, are exempt."

Read the original:
Banning kids from social media - The Week

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), through its National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), are pleased to launch the National Firefighter Registry for Cancer online enrollment system for firefighters across the nation. The NFR for cancer is the largest effort undertaken by the nation to support and advance understanding of cancer in the fire service. President Biden has shown strong and enduring support for firefighters for decades and this step will help deliver on his commitment to end cancer as we know it as part of the Cancer Moonshot.

Numerous studies show that firefighters exposure on the fireground, where smoke and hazardous chemicals are released from burning materials, may increase the risk of certain types of cancer. President Biden has signed two laws that seek specifically to advance firefighter health, safety, and protection from toxic exposures on the job. The National Firefighter Registry (NFR) for Cancer will contribute to these broader efforts by helping scientists better understand the link between cancer and firefighting to ultimately improve firefighter health. The NFR will capture details about firefighters work and match it with cancer information from state cancer registries.

While participation is voluntary, all U.S. firefighters, with or without cancer, are encouraged to join the NFR for Cancer; these include:

Visit NFR.CDC.GOV to complete the NFR survey through the secure website. Enrollment takes about 30 minutes to complete. You will:

Visit the NIOSH NFR for Cancer webpage to learn more about:

John Howard, M.D., the Director of NIOSH, states that I encourage all firefighters across America to join the NFR for Cancer the more firefighters who join the NFR, the more researchers can learn about cancer arising from firefighting and how to prevent it. Firefighters are vital to the safety of our communities and their enrollment in the NFR for cancer can help protect them and the next generation of firefighters from cancer.

The NFR Team Lead, Kenny Fent, Ph.D., CIH adds that with more than 1 million career and volunteer firefighters across the U.S., protecting their health and safety is a top priority for NIOSH. We are excited to raise awareness about this groundbreaking effort to better understand and reduce cancer among all types of firefighters, including those who have traditionally been underrepresented in research, such as women, volunteers, and firefighters from racial and ethnic minority groups.

The NFR for Cancer is the largest existing effort undertaken to understand and reduce cancer among U.S. firefighters. In 2018, Congress passed the Firefighter Cancer Registry Act. This Act directed NIOSH to develop a voluntary registry of firefighters to better understand the link between firefighting and cancer. NIOSH worked with a national group of experts, in fire and emergency services, public health, epidemiology, and medical fields, to plan and launch the NFR for Cancer.

NIOSH is the federal institute that conducts research and makes recommendations for preventing work-related injuries, illnesses and deaths. For more information about NIOSH visit http://www.cdc.gov/niosh.

More:
NIOSH Launches the National Firefighter Registry for Cancer to ... - CDC

19 April 2023, 04:49 BST

To play this content, please enable JavaScript, or try a different browser

'Fox has admitted to telling lies about Dominion' - CEO

In a last-minute deal, Fox News has settled a defamation lawsuit from voting machine firm Dominion over its coverage of the 2020 US election.

The network, controlled by media mogul Rupert Murdoch and his family, agreed to pay Dominion $787.5m (634m).

While the payout is large, it means Fox avoids what was billed by some as the defamation trial of the century.

However, the network faces a second, similar lawsuit from another election technology firm, Smartmatic.

The settlement means that Fox and Dominion can now put the case behind them with both firms being able to claim victory.

"The reality is two big companies in this case, are by nature risk averse. And any time you got a jury, it's risky," David Logan, professor of law at Roger Williams University, told the BBC.

At almost $800m, it is one of the biggest ever financial settlements in a defamation case.

"It's obviously a significant number, and we shouldn't dismiss that. I mean, it is a really, really large number," Angelo Carusone, president of left-leaning media watchdog Media Matters for America, told the BBC.

However, it is less than half the $1.6bn initially sought by Dominion.

To put the payout into context, parent company Fox Corporation reported net income of $1.23bn for the last financial year

It is also sitting on large reserves of cash - around $4bn, according to recent company filings.

Rupert Murdoch and his family - who control the News Corp media empire which includes Fox News, The Times of London and The Wall Street Journal - are estimated to have a fortune of $17.6bn, according to Forbes magazine.

The deal also spares Fox executives, including Mr Murdoch, and some of the network's anchors from having to testify in one of the most high-profile defamation trials in history.

"Fox was going to have to deal with another round of embarrassing revelations," Prof Logan said.

The company's legal team may have also been weighing the potential financial cost if the case had gone ahead and Dominion had won.

Fox issued a written statement acknowledging the court's findings that Fox made false claims about Dominion, but it did not include an apology.

"We are hopeful that our decision to resolve this dispute with Dominion amicably, instead of the acrimony of a divisive trial, allows the country to move forward from these issues," the statement said.

However, Fox will not be able to put the issues of its reporting on the 2020 presidential election behind it quite yet.

It still faces a second, similar defamation lawsuit from another election technology firm, Smartmatic, which is seeking $2.7bn.

For Dominion, the $787.5m Fox payout may be just the start.

It still has outstanding cases against Fox's smaller rivals Newsmax and OAN plus several of former President Donald Trump's associates.

Additional reporting by Monica Miller

Go here to see the original:
Fox News lawsuit: Can it afford the $787.5m Dominion settlement? - BBC