DELEITURAS

• Documents dating back to the 1970s were made available after Johnson & Johnson was compelled to share them with 11,700 plaintiffs claiming Baby Powder and similar products gave them cancer, according to Reuters.
• Johnson & Johnson saw its stock fall 9 percent after the Friday publication of a Reuters report claiming company leaders mishandled knowledge that some samples of its talc powder tested positive for asbestos.
• Asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral that has been linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma.

Johnson & Johnson saw its stock fall 9 percent after the Friday publication of a Reuters report that alleges the company did not tell regulators or the public about asbestos found in its talc products, including Baby Powder, for decades.

Individuals have sued Johnson & Johnson for years claiming that asbestos in its products made them seriously ill, but the report details brand-new company documents in which executives, lawyers and scientists discuss powder samples that were found to contain asbestos in the lab.

The documents span from 1971 to the 2000s. They were made available only once Johnson & Johnson was compelled to share them with 11,700 plaintiffs claiming Baby Powder and similar products gave them cancer, according to Reuters.

Asbestos is a naturally occuring mineral that has been linked to ovarian cancer and mesothelioma, a rare form of cancer. The effects of asbestos can take years to manifest after exposure to the carcinogen.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency banned many uses of asbestos in the 1970s, according to the EPA website.

The Reuters story focused on Darlene Coker, a woman who died in 2009 at age 63 after being diagnosed with mesothelioma. She had sued Johnson & Johnson after years of using Baby Powder but was forced to drop the suit in 1999 when she couldn’t provide enough evidence, reported Reuters.

Johnson & Johnson has had both favorable and unfavorable verdicts in cases involving plaintiffs who allege its talc products gave them mesothelioma, according to Reuters. The company’s lawyers have used the following arguments in court, according to Reuters:

In court, [Johnson & Johnson] lawyers have told jurors that company records showing that asbestos was detected in its talc referred to talc intended for industrial use. Other records, they have argued, referred to non-asbestos forms of the same minerals that their experts say are harmless. J&J has also argued that some tests picked up “background” asbestos – stray fibers that could have contaminated samples after floating into a mill or lab from a vehicle clutch or fraying insulation.

In July, a jury awarded 22 plaintiffs nearly $4.7 billion in damages based on their claim that asbestos in Baby Powder and Shower to Shower talc gave them ovarian cancer, reported The St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Shower to Shower is a brand that Johnson and Johnson used to own, according to Reuters.

Johnson & Johnson says it will appeal the verdicts against it, reported Reuters.

Ernie Knewitz, Johnson & Johnson’s vice president of global media relations, wrote the following statement to Reuters in an email:

Plaintiffs’ attorneys out for personal financial gain are distorting historical documents and intentionally creating confusion in the courtroom and in the media. This is all a calculated attempt to distract from the fact that thousands of independent tests prove our talc does not contain asbestos or cause cancer. Any suggestion that Johnson & Johnson knew or hid information about the safety of talc is false.

The earliest mention of asbestos in Johnson & Johnson’s newly shared documents came in 1957 and 1958 lab reports on talc sourced from Italy. The reports didn’t refer to asbestos by name but mentioned a contaminant known as tremolite, which is a form of asbestos.

In 1969, a Johnson & Johnson talc executive asked a company doctor in a memo about tremolite, which he said it was “normal” to find in U.S. talc deposits.

“We have to firm up the position the Company should have on the presence of the mineral Tremolite in talc,” Ashton wrote. “The question is … How bad is Tremolite medically, and how much of it can safely be in a talc base we might develop?”

The doctor responded by informing Ashton of the potential medical dangers of the substance and telling him “it would seem to be prudent to limit any possible content of Tremolite … to an absolute minimum,” according to Reuters.

Talc products are just a drop in the bucket that is Johnson & Johnson’s revenue. Those products made up $420 million of the company’s $76.5 billion in revenue in 2017, according to Reuters.

Johnson & Johnson has been sued for allegedly colluding with a former U.S. Food & Drug Administration commissioner to enrich themselves by failing to disclose the dangers what the lawsuit deemed a “deadly” antibiotic.

The allegations against Johnson & Johnson come as other groups in the health industry face scrutiny. For example, at least 16 drug companies making roughly 300 generic medications are facing increasing pressure in an illegal price-fixing investigation. And e-cigarette giant Juul is facing criticism for allegedly marketing its adults-only product to teens, although the medical community does not understand what vaping does to developing minds and bodies.

The Daily Caller News Foundation reached out to Johnson & Johnson but did not receive a response at the time of publication.

• Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has compiled a slew of ethics complaints during her first few months in Congress without providing much in the way of a response for any of them
• Watchdog groups have leveled ethics complaints at Ocasio-Cortez over her use of social media and alleged willingness to set up a million-dollar slush fund
• Ocasio-Cortez has not yet fully responded to The Daily Caller News Foundation’s reports showing that she and her chief of staff had sole ownership of a political action committee that helped her campaign

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has racked up a handful of major ethics complaints in the three months since she began her first congressional term. The New York Democrat has yet to address one of the most damning reports about her campaign team’s actions during the election.

Two watchdog groups have filed ethics complaints against Ocasio-Cortez for misusing her resources as a congresswoman with the Office of Congressional Ethics, while another group filed a complaint with Federal Election Commission (FEC) alleging she and her chief of staff set up a million-dollar private slush fund. Ocasio-Cortez’s term officially began in January.

Ocasio-Cortez “improperly converted U.S. House resources to her non-official, personal use by obtaining an official ‘@mail.house.gov’ e-mail address for her boyfriend, despite the fact he was not employed by her congressional office,” the Coolidge-Reagan Foundation claimed in a complaint Thursday.

She also falsely designated her boyfriend, Riley Roberts, a “staff” member to help secure the address, the group noted. The Coolidge-Reagan Foundation’s website champions itself as a first amendment watchdog group that defends, protects and advances “liberty.”

News of the email address first appeared after political consultant Luke Thompson posted a screenshot of a House directory on Feb. 15 showing Roberts listed under “staff,” alongside the email address and the phone number for Ocasio-Cortez’s congressional office. The New York representative’s chief of staff, Saikat Chakrabarti, dismissed Thompson’s insinuation that Robert is a paid staff member.

“He’s not paid. We have no volunteers in the office. He’s not doing any government work,” Chakrabarti noted in a tweet responding to Thompson. “He can see her calendar just like spouses/partners/family members in other congressional office. Check your damn facts before you report bullshit. Lazy journos need to learn to do their jobs.”

(Screenshot of House Directory site showing Riley’s email address)

The second complaint was filed by The Foundation for Accountability and Civic Trust (FACT) Thursday and alleges Ocasio-Cortez’s political Instagram account contains direct links to her House Instagram account and includes a link for political contributions, alongside posts of official video footage on the House floor. The group claims these actions violate House ethics rules.

House ethics rules prohibit lawmakers from using official resources for political purposes, the complaint notes. The rules also forbid a member from posting a link to her official social media site on a campaign social media site. She solicited donations on the page that used the video footage, according to FACT, a nonprofit group whose past president, Matthew Whitaker, served as President Donald Trump’s acting attorney general in 2018 and 2019.

The three complaints came within days of each other. National Legal and Policy Center (NLPC), a conservative government watchdog, accused Ocasio-Cortez and Chakrabarti Tuesday of illegally funneling money between political action committees (PACs) and private companies that were both controlled by Chakrabarti.

NLPC claims the transfers from the PACs to the LLCs were part of an “extensive” plan to avoid reporting campaign expenditures to the FEC. Ocasio-Cortez, for part, denied violating campaign finance laws in response to the complaint. “There is no violation,” Ocasio-Cortez told Fox News.

But she has not yet fully responded to a Daily Caller News Foundation report Wednesday showing that both Ocasio-Cortez and her chief of staff obtained majority control over the Justice Democrats PAC in 2017, despite the fact that the PAC was credited with being the central force behind her primary victory.

She never disclosed her control over the PAC, leaving open the possibility that they could face serious criminal charges if it is found that they intentionally withheld the ties from the FEC. Ocasio-Cortez’s office has not yet responded to TheDCNF’s request for comment about FACT’s complaint.

Ocasio-Cortez’s first three months in office have stymied with various fits and starts. She’s managed to inject a lot of energy into the Democratic Party, using her high-profile social media presence to elevate new ways to tackle global warming and discuss criminal justice issues. But one of her first actions as a congresswoman was beset with problems from the get-go.

She unveiled her so-called Green New Deal resolution Feb. 2 to cheers from liberal Democrats and environmentalists, but her office was forced to make extensive clarifications after a document posted on her website appeared to contradict aspects of the actual proposal. The document on her site called for a “[b]uild out highspeed rail at a scale where air travel stops becoming necessary.”

Conservatives and Republicans took advantage of the bungled roll out, disparaging it as pie-in-the-sky and unrealistic.

Music video by LOCASH performing I Love This Life.

Survey Reveals Workers Favor Frequent Job Changes, but Managers Aren’t on Board

The tenure tide is shifting, and substantially more workers — especially those from younger generations — see rewards in job hopping than before, according to new research from global staffing firm Robert Half. Sixty-four percent of professionals polled think changing roles every few years can be beneficial, with the biggest perk being a higher salary. This marks a 22 percent increase from a similar survey conducted four years ago.

Executives don’t necessarily agree. A separate survey of CFOs found 44 percent are not at all likely to hire a candidate with a history of job hopping because they want to avoid losing them in the future.

But workers and managers are close to agreeing on one thing: When asked the number of role changes in 10 years that constitute a job hopper, professionals said five and CFOs cited six.

View a slideshow to see how workers and executives view job hopping.

Other key findings from the research:

• Seventy-five percent of employees ages 18 to 34 view job hopping as beneficial, compared to 59 percent of workers ages 35 to 54 and 51 percent of those 55 and older.
• Workers with a college degree or higher see the most benefit in changing jobs every few years (67 percent).
• Company size matters: 51 percent of CFOs at companies with more than 1,000 employees said a history of frequent job changes isn’t relevant if the candidate is the right fit.
• The biggest drawback of job hopping, cited by 46 percent of workers, is being perceived as a flight risk.

“While job hopping can have benefits, too many employment changes can raise red flags with hiring managers,” said Paul McDonald, senior executive director for Robert Half. “Professionals should take time to weigh the pros and cons before making a career move.”

Companies struggling with employee turnover need to make retention a priority. Added McDonald, “In today’s candidate-short market, keeping key performers engaged should be top of mind for managers. Businesses worried about losing talent to the competition should focus on improving corporate culture and strive to be the type of company employees want to stay with long term.”

Robert Half offers the following tips for professionals when considering a job change — and for managers to attract and retain workers:

For professionals:

• Assess your current situation. Consider what you would be leaving behind by changing jobs, including your compensation package and nonmonetary aspects such as a supportive manager or team.
• Ask for a second opinion. Consult with a trusted mentor or specialized recruiter who can help you decide whether changing jobs is the best option or not.
• Leave on good terms. Give ample notice and complete outstanding projects before your last day. You never know when you will cross paths with current colleagues or if you may decide to return to your present employer.

For managers:

• Make your company a great place to work. Promote your organization’s reputation and values to attract candidates who have similar principles. Highlight advantages, such as a positive corporate culture and flexible scheduling options, that make employees feel respected and excited to come to work.
• Implement succession planning at all levels. Have career path discussions with top talent so they understand how they can advance at your company.
• Invest in employees’ growth. Offering professional development opportunities can increase job satisfaction of existing staff and attract in-demand candidates.

Slender Man, a.k.a Slenderman, “gets into your head,” says a tormented girl in the trailer for the upcoming horror flick based on the scary internet meme. “Like a virus.”

Set in a small Massachusetts town, the story begins with four girls performing a ritual as a means to debunk the existence of the Slender Man who is blamed for the disappearances and suicides of young girls.

“It’s him,” a girl in a darkened forest says to herself as the ghostly figure appeared.

The cast includes Joey King, Julia Goldani-Telles, Jaz Sinclair, Annalise Basso and Javier Botet. Producers are Bradley J. Fischer, James Vanderbilt, William Sherak, Robyn Meisinger and Sarah Snow.

Slender Man hits theaters May 2018.

Courtesy Sony

Self-proclaimed Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders pledged to offset carbon emissions from his 2020 presidential campaign travel by donating contributions to renewable energy projects, The Huffington Post reports.

“Bernie Sanders is a champion in the fight for climate justice and, like him, we know we need to address our emissions through action, not just rhetoric,” Sanders’s campaign manager Faiz Shakir told HuffPo in a statement. “We are proud to lead the way in the fight against climate change by acting boldly to move our energy system away from fossil fuels and towards sustainable energy sources.”

The pledge follows a March 15 announcement that Sanders’s campaign would be the first presidential campaign to unionize under organized labor.

Sanders has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to travel across the country on private jets during past campaigns. During his 2018 Senate reelection campaign, Sanders spent roughly $300,000 on private jets alone. After losing the 2016 presidential primary to Hillary Clinton, Sanders spent about $100,000 from Clinton’s campaign funds on private jet travel to stump for the Democratic nominee.

Sanders is touting his progressive bona fides in an increasingly crowded Democratic primary field. Sanders is making early attempts to lock up his base against fellow Democrats who are increasingly showing favor to progressive positions.

Democratic presidential candidates Robert “Beto” O’Rourke, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand have all expressed openness to packing the Supreme Court with liberal justices to influence decisions.

They couldn’t help themselves. The mainstream media published column after column saying that Trump’s promise for GDP growth north of 3% was impossible because, after all, Obama hadn’t been able to do it.

First, here are the media reports earlier this year that made it seem impossible that Trump’s policies could bring about 3% or more GDP growth – ever (note: Q217 GDP was 3%, Q317 GDP was 3.3%)

LA Times: If Trump thinks he can get more than 3% economic growth, he’s dreaming 5/19/17

Then there are the nonpolitical observers, such as bond guru Bill Gross, who says: “High rates of growth, and the productivity that drives it, are likely distant memories from a bygone era.” And academic economists such as Northwestern’s Robert J. Gordon, who states bluntly in his pessimistic book “The Rise and Fall of American Growth” that U.S. GDP’s best years are behind it.

“… U.S. GDP’s best years are behind it.” Wow… just wow.

Business Insider: The clearest part of Trump’s economic plan is also the most delusional part 2/27/17

Three percent GDP growth. Three percent GDP growth. Three percent GDP growth.

Get it stamped on your brain. Get it tattooed somewhere. Have some T-shirts made, because this is team Trump’s goal for the economy. In a time of extreme policy confusion, 3% GDP growth is one of the only firm targets we have to hang onto.

The problem is that in interview after interview, Donald Trump and his surrogates have demonstrated that they have no idea how to get there.

That last line is so much funnier now than they ever could have imagined when they wrote it.

VOX: Trump: I will achieve 3 percent growth! CBO: No, you will not.

President Trump’s first budget, which he and his budget director claimed would erase the federal deficit within 10 years, would do no such thing, the Congressional Budget Office concludes in a new analysis.

The cuts in the president’s budget would, the CBO finds, dramatically reduce the deficit, by about $4.2 trillion over 10 years (more than the $2.4 trillion in deficit reduction in Obama’s final budget). But even with those cuts, the total deficit would only be reduced by one-third rather than wiped out completely, as the Trump administration had claimed.

The CBO’s deficit reduction estimate is so much lower because the White House claimed its budget would lead to 3 percent economic growth, dramatically increasing tax revenue and closing the gap between what the government brings in and what it spends. But the CBO found that Trump’s budget would only mildly improve economic growth. The average economic growth rate would rise by 0.1 percentage points per year, from about 1.8 percent to 1.9 percent.

Whoops. Looks like both Vox and the CBO got it wrong. Remember, the CBO uses static analysis, the flawed economic model that simulates an economy that doesn’t respond to change. We’ve already seen two 3% quarters and expect a 3rd. One more 3%+ period and the economy has achieved that which the CBO couldn’t see. Everything they’ve estimated so far on the tax plan and spending bills is equally flawed. Until the CBO adopts dynamic scoring/analysis they will forever be the laughing stock of the economic community.

CNBC: Economists don’t buy Trump’s 3 percent GDP growth target (9/25/17)

Economists didn’t project 3% in 2017 or 2018 according to this CNBC piece. While Q117 came in at 1.2%, that is the only quarter when the country was still operating under the assumptions, regulations and policies of a Democratic party White House. GDP growth under full Trump control came in at 3.0, 3.3 and a projected 3.2% for the fourth quarter. That 1.2% really looks sucky against those numbers, and economists missed the coming Trump bump too:

According to the survey from the National Association for Business Economics, most of those polled expect the growth of U.S. gross domestic product to level off next year at an annual pace of about 2.3 percent.

The stories are plentiful – and dead wrong. But what about the stories predicting major economic growth from former Present Obama’s policies on the economy? Hint: in Obama’s last year in office, U.S. GDP growth was an uninspiring 1.5% and decreasing. Had America not changed course and elected a pro-business president, it might have gone back into recession.

Obama tried Cash for clunkers, the GM buyout, and of course Porkulus (ARRA) which even got its own song.

But at the end, Obama was the first president to have failed to reach 3% annual GDP in any year of his presidency – EVER.

An interesting note is this is the second time that a Republican president pushing Conservative policies rescued the American economy from the clutches of a flailing Democrat. And no, we don’t miss former President Carter either.

Just when you thought you’d seen the best Halloween getup ever, someone shows up to the party with a one-up. YouTuber Jesse uploaded this video that he and Casey Neistat of his real-life Star Wars speeder that looks like the speeder bikes from The Return of the Jedi.

The bikes are awesome looking, the reactions from pedestrians and drivers will put a smile on your face and the surprise entrance of a stormtrooper will make you laugh.

For anyone asking, yes, this is how you win at Halloween.

Personal loans are United States’ fastest-growing consumer-lending category, as they have reached a new record this year. Data from TransUnion credit bureau shows a significant rise of about 18%, this only during the first four months of the year, reaching the sum of $120 billion.

The data also shows that Fintech companies represent 36% of total personal loans, in the year 2017. This is compared with 2010 data, when these companies represented less than 1% of total personal loans, to see how much the percentage grew in the last 7 years.

Another factor that is driving the rise of personal loans is the web-based firms, such as Lending Club, Prosper Marketplace Inc. etc. For example, according to a filling provided by Lending Club, the personal-loan originations have increased rapidly in the first four months of the year, specifically 20% higher than the previous year and up to $2.1 billion.

When deciding which the best personal loans are, you have to decide between those provided by the banks – which have lending as a core banking service since the founding of banks – and those provided by web-based firms, which are more likely to offer unsecured loans. Of course, in between making this decision, there are many other factors that help one decide over the best personal loans.

Naturally, this increase in personal loans comes with a high risk, especially for analysts. As interest rates rise, the risk that losses in consumer credit will increase is getting high. To back up this information, data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that the total household debt, in the United States, reached a new peak in the first four months of the year.

Don Fandetti, an analyst at Wells Fargo & Co., stated that what consumers are after when choosing these personal loans, is the consolidation of their debt and the ability to make large one-time purchases. Furthermore, for the new players like some of the fintech companies, personal loans are an easier way of doing things than a straight confrontation with the credit-card lenders.

The total consumer balance has reached impressive levels in the first quarter of the year. The balance is of $12.9 trillion, of which personal loans account for just 1%, according to data provided by TransUnion. Mortgages, which represent almost $9 trillion, are the largest part of consumer debt, after which student and auto loans follow.

As most of the lenders pull back from credit cards and auto, the personal-loan segment is expected to grow further. But there are also companies that scale back on personal loans, such as Discover Financial Services. Its CEO, David Nelms, during a conference back in June, said that some fintech companies may get sometimes “a little carried away on pricing and credit”.

But, as always, this arrival of new players in the personal loans area is not seen as a problem. This way, the consumers will have even more choices when trying to decide which one offers the best personal loan.

Survey Reveals Workers Favor Frequent Job Changes, but Managers Aren’t on Board

The tenure tide is shifting, and substantially more workers — especially those from younger generations — see rewards in job hopping than before, according to new research from global staffing firm Robert Half. Sixty-four percent of professionals polled think changing roles every few years can be beneficial, with the biggest perk being a higher salary. This marks a 22 percent increase from a similar survey conducted four years ago.

Executives don’t necessarily agree. A separate survey of CFOs found 44 percent are not at all likely to hire a candidate with a history of job hopping because they want to avoid losing them in the future.

But workers and managers are close to agreeing on one thing: When asked the number of role changes in 10 years that constitute a job hopper, professionals said five and CFOs cited six.

View a slideshow to see how workers and executives view job hopping.

Other key findings from the research:

• Seventy-five percent of employees ages 18 to 34 view job hopping as beneficial, compared to 59 percent of workers ages 35 to 54 and 51 percent of those 55 and older.
• Workers with a college degree or higher see the most benefit in changing jobs every few years (67 percent).
• Company size matters: 51 percent of CFOs at companies with more than 1,000 employees said a history of frequent job changes isn’t relevant if the candidate is the right fit.
• The biggest drawback of job hopping, cited by 46 percent of workers, is being perceived as a flight risk.

“While job hopping can have benefits, too many employment changes can raise red flags with hiring managers,” said Paul McDonald, senior executive director for Robert Half. “Professionals should take time to weigh the pros and cons before making a career move.”

Companies struggling with employee turnover need to make retention a priority. Added McDonald, “In today’s candidate-short market, keeping key performers engaged should be top of mind for managers. Businesses worried about losing talent to the competition should focus on improving corporate culture and strive to be the type of company employees want to stay with long term.”

Robert Half offers the following tips for professionals when considering a job change — and for managers to attract and retain workers:

For professionals:

• Assess your current situation. Consider what you would be leaving behind by changing jobs, including your compensation package and nonmonetary aspects such as a supportive manager or team.
• Ask for a second opinion. Consult with a trusted mentor or specialized recruiter who can help you decide whether changing jobs is the best option or not.
• Leave on good terms. Give ample notice and complete outstanding projects before your last day. You never know when you will cross paths with current colleagues or if you may decide to return to your present employer.

For managers:

• Make your company a great place to work. Promote your organization’s reputation and values to attract candidates who have similar principles. Highlight advantages, such as a positive corporate culture and flexible scheduling options, that make employees feel respected and excited to come to work.
• Implement succession planning at all levels. Have career path discussions with top talent so they understand how they can advance at your company.
• Invest in employees’ growth. Offering professional development opportunities can increase job satisfaction of existing staff and attract in-demand candidates.