web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu
Westlake Legal Group > News Corporation (Page 106)

I Had 2 Kids. Now I Work To Influence People Against Having Their Own.

Westlake Legal Group 5d542c823b0000df16db90ca I Had 2 Kids. Now I Work To Influence People Against Having Their Own.

I am the mother of two beautiful children. When I had my first, 17 years ago, I was blissfully ignorant about climate change. Now, not a day goes by that I don’t think about how it will impact my kids’ future. And that is why, despite the profound love and joy I’ve found as a mother, I’ve spent the last five years of my life working to influence people not to have children — or at least to have fewer of them. 

I had been married 10 years before I decided to have a child. It was a carefully calculated economic, intellectual and psychological decision. I analyzed my finances, the current state of my marriage, and my health. Although I was intellectually prepared, I was not prepared for motherhood to be the most fulfilling part of my life, in ways big and small. I devoted as much passion and devotion to being a parent as I had to my successful career in public relations. I filled seemingly endless days reading to my children, taking trips to the zoo, and cooking their favorite meals. There were the minor illnesses, nightmares and sports injuries, but I was so enthusiastic to spend time together that I even homeschooled my kids for two years just to give us more time together as a family. 

About six years ago, however, an unfamiliar feeling began to creep into my consciousness. I started to read more and more about the environmental destruction we, as humans, are inflicting upon the planet. Species are going extinct, forests are disappearing and aquifers are drying up at a startling rate. The steady drumbeat of dire news reminded me of how I felt being newly pregnant with my first child on the day of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when I questioned the sanity of bringing a child into such a chaotic, hate-filled world. Now, as a mother with two teenagers, I approached this latest existential crisis with less fear and more resolve. I wanted to help fix the situation. So I quit my job as a school librarian, and I took a job working on an environmental documentary. 

We traveled around the world, documenting the impact our global population of 7.6 billion people is having on the planet, including the acceleration and exacerbation of climate change. Fishermen in Japan told us about the need to start eating “garbage fish” because other species were no longer available. Farmers in Kansas told us about the increasing competition between farms for use of the aquifer they depend upon to irrigate their crops, as well as the unrelenting demand for them to produce more and more to keep up with the world’s demand. Public health workers in India showed us the fetid water that the less fortunate must use to drink and bathe because there is no clean supply.  

Working on the documentary, “8 Billion Angels,” opened my eyes to the scope of the problem, but, most importantly, it taught me about a practical, science-based solution that has a greater positive impact than any other “green” solution available: have fewer kids. 

Do we want a world of more people with less opportunity for good health, peace and prosperity, or fewer people with more of each?

If explosive world population growth is the greatest driver of our environmental degradation, including climate change, and if even the most environmentally conscious person creates a significant carbon footprint simply by consuming food, using fuel for transportation and consuming energy for heating and cooling, wouldn’t having fewer children be the best way to address our problems? Plenty of scientists, environmentalists and economists think so — and for good reason. In fact, a highly regarded 2017 study in Sweden found that having fewer children is by far the most effective way to address global warming and reduce emissions in developed countries.  

“I knew this was a sensitive topic to bring up,” said study co-author Kimberly Nicholas on NPR’s “Morning Edition” at the time of the study’s publication. “Certainly it’s not my place as a scientist to dictate choices for other people. But I do think it is my place to do the analysis and report it fairly.”

How could I, as a mother, tell women who want children to forgo the very choice I had made, for the sake of the planet and its inhabitants? I can’t and I won’t. What I can do is devote myself to giving others what I wanted for myself — the information to make the best possible decision for me, my family and my planet. 

After “8 Billion Angels” wrapped at the end of 2018, the executive producer approached me with a question: “Are you satisfied that you’ve fulfilled your mission to help make the world better for future generations? If not, let’s not settle for the single burst of attention that a film, book or event can generate.” We were frustrated after repeatedly watching documentaries and reading books that admire the problem, only to tack on some generic DIY action steps at the end, leaving audiences feeling full of despair, uninspired and confused about what to do. To continue the conversation we started in the film, we created Earth Overshoot — an organization dedicated to changing social norms and demonstrating ways that we, as individuals and as societies, can live sustainably within the planet’s ecological limits. 

I fight every day to redefine the narrative regarding population’s role in environmental sustainability. Speaking at conferences, screening the film and partnering with like-minded organizations, I help elevate the subject from out of the shadows. My goal is to correct misconceptions of what is considered normal and to support women who wish to limit or forgo childbearing in the face of societal pressure. 

I believe that forgoing children in the face of climate change is a chance for women to show strength, power and control.

When I was growing up, the only story we, as women heard, was one that followed a pre-ordained script. Step 1: school; step 2: marriage; step 3: children. Today, we need to be able to pause throughout our lives to assess and determine our next move. Only then can we move beyond making the decision to have children based on some outdated, misguided and destructive obligation to society and put the focus where it should be — on the best interests of the child, the parent and the planet.  

And what is the best way to promote having fewer children in a voluntary, human rights context? Ensuring that high-quality family planning is available for all women who want it, anywhere in the world, and increasing access to education for girls. Women with more education manage their reproductive health more, and have fewer and healthier children.

Studies have also shown that when women delay or forgo having children, there are not only environmental benefits, but the economic, health, and educational prospects of the mother and child rise dramatically. Shouldn’t we view this decision to promote smaller families as opting for quality over quantity? Do we want a world of more people with less opportunity for good health, peace and prosperity, or fewer people with more of each?

I believe that forgoing children in the face of climate change is a chance for women to show strength, power and control. Women have the strength to heal the planet, women have the power to give the children they do have the best possible future, and women should have the control to make decisions about their own bodies — decisions that affect their lives, and the future of our planet. 

Women don’t have to do it alone. There is a role we all can play, men and women, young and old, to promote a culture that recognizes the value of small families and supports women when they delay or forgo children. We can all support organizations that provide women access to high-quality reproductive health care and invest in girls’ education, and we can advocate — at local, national and international levels — for the resources and policy changes needed to help heal the environment and reduce ecological overshoot. We can all help to ease the burdens placed on the Earth’s mothers — and to ease the burdens we all place on Mother Earth. 

For more content and to be part of the “This New World” community, follow our Facebook page.

HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

UEFA postpones Champions League talks as clubs, leagues row

Changes to the Champions League are unlikely to be decided this year after UEFA on Thursday called off joint talks with the heads of European clubs and leagues who have spent months arguing over potential radical overhaul of the format of European competitions.

European Club Association chairman Andrea Agnelli, who has been criticized for championing a largely closed Champions League, and European Leagues president Lars-Christer Olsson were due to jointly meet UEFA President Aleksander Ceferin on Sept. 11.

“I have decided to postpone the meeting,” Ceferin wrote to Agnelli and Olsson in a letter obtained by The Associated Press. “I will send a new invitation as soon as I think that we are ready for a meaningful discussion.”

The letter was sent a day before the ECA executive board, led by the Juventus chairman Agnelli, meets in private in Liverpool to discuss their vision for an overhaul of continent-wide club competitions from 2024. The third competition — provisionally called Europa League Two — is already due to launch in 2021.

“We are currently in the process of gathering feedback from our national associations,” Ceferin wrote, “and I feel — more generally — that a new discussion now would be premature as we are analyzing feedback and proposals coming from different parties.”

The European Leagues group has fiercely opposed Agnelli’s core idea of restricting access to the Champions League and Europa League, as have dozens of teams from across the continent who are members of the ECA.

A proposal presented earlier this year by UEFA would guarantee 24 of 32 Champions League group teams return the following season, introducing significant promotion and relegation with the Europa League. Leagues fear end-of-season intrigue will be reduced in their competitions, with finishing positions currently determining qualification for Europe.

“As you know very well, UEFA deliberately kicked off the review process for the 2024/27 competition cycle much ahead of our regular schedule and we are therefore in no hurry,” Ceferin told Agnelli and Olsson. “We do not, in any case, expect to make a decision this year.”

The ECA has been calling for eight-team groups in the Champions League instead of the current four. That would guarantee clubs more revenue from UEFA for playing 14 games before the knockout rounds instead of the current six.

That would benefit the illustrious clubs who want to play each other more often in Europe, appearing to be dissatisfied with a lack of competition at home. Juventus has won eight straight Italian titles, Bayern Munich has won the last seven in Germany, and Paris Saint-Germain has won six of seven in France.

The English Premier League is the leading force resisting dramatic changes to the Champions League and claims to have the backing from all of its teams. That includes Manchester United, whose executive vice chairman Ed Woodward is an ECA executive board member.

Westlake Legal Group SOC-Aleksander-Ceferin UEFA postpones Champions League talks as clubs, leagues row fox-news/sports/soccer fnc/sports fnc Associated Press article 68968df8-9ac2-526e-999e-770f6395c889   Westlake Legal Group SOC-Aleksander-Ceferin UEFA postpones Champions League talks as clubs, leagues row fox-news/sports/soccer fnc/sports fnc Associated Press article 68968df8-9ac2-526e-999e-770f6395c889

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

I Had 2 Kids. Now I Work To Convince People Not To Have Their Own.

Westlake Legal Group 5d542c823b0000df16db90ca I Had 2 Kids. Now I Work To Convince People Not To Have Their Own.

I am the mother of two beautiful children. When I had my first, 17 years ago, I was blissfully ignorant about climate change. Now, not a day goes by that I don’t think about how it will impact my kids’ future. And that is why, despite the profound love and joy I’ve found as a mother, I’ve spent the last five years of my life working to influence people not to have children — or at least to have fewer of them. 

I had been married 10 years before I decided to have a child. It was a carefully calculated economic, intellectual and psychological decision. I analyzed my finances, the current state of my marriage, and my health. Although I was intellectually prepared, I was not prepared for motherhood to be the most fulfilling part of my life, in ways big and small. I devoted as much passion and devotion to being a parent as I had to my successful career in public relations. I filled seemingly endless days reading to my children, taking trips to the zoo, and cooking their favorite meals. There were the minor illnesses, nightmares and sports injuries, but I was so enthusiastic to spend time together that I even homeschooled my kids for two years just to give us more time together as a family. 

About six years ago, however, an unfamiliar feeling began to creep into my consciousness. I started to read more and more about the environmental destruction we, as humans, are inflicting upon the planet. Species are going extinct, forests are disappearing and aquifers are drying up at a startling rate. The steady drumbeat of dire news reminded me of how I felt being newly pregnant with my first child on the day of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, when I questioned the sanity of bringing a child into such a chaotic, hate-filled world. Now, as a mother with two teenagers, I approached this latest existential crisis with less fear and more resolve. I wanted to help fix the situation. So I quit my job as a school librarian, and I took a job working on an environmental documentary. 

We traveled around the world, documenting the impact our global population of 7.6 billion people is having on the planet, including the acceleration and exacerbation of climate change. Fishermen in Japan told us about the need to start eating “garbage fish” because other species were no longer available. Farmers in Kansas told us about the increasing competition between farms for use of the aquifer they depend upon to irrigate their crops, as well as the unrelenting demand for them to produce more and more to keep up with the world’s demand. Public health workers in India showed us the fetid water that the less fortunate must use to drink and bathe because there is no clean supply.  

Working on the documentary, “8 Billion Angels,” opened my eyes to the scope of the problem, but, most importantly, it taught me about a practical, science-based solution that has a greater positive impact than any other “green” solution available: have fewer kids. 

Do we want a world of more people with less opportunity for good health, peace and prosperity, or fewer people with more of each?

If explosive world population growth is the greatest driver of our environmental degradation, including climate change, and if even the most environmentally conscious person creates a significant carbon footprint simply by consuming food, using fuel for transportation and consuming energy for heating and cooling, wouldn’t having fewer children be the best way to address our problems? Plenty of scientists, environmentalists and economists think so — and for good reason. In fact, a highly regarded 2017 study in Sweden found that having fewer children is by far the most effective way to address global warming and reduce emissions in developed countries.  

“I knew this was a sensitive topic to bring up,” said study co-author Kimberly Nicholas on NPR’s “Morning Edition” at the time of the study’s publication. “Certainly it’s not my place as a scientist to dictate choices for other people. But I do think it is my place to do the analysis and report it fairly.”

How could I, as a mother, tell women who want children to forgo the very choice I had made, for the sake of the planet and its inhabitants? I can’t and I won’t. What I can do is devote myself to giving others what I wanted for myself — the information to make the best possible decision for me, my family and my planet. 

After “8 Billion Angels” wrapped at the end of 2018, the executive producer approached me with a question: “Are you satisfied that you’ve fulfilled your mission to help make the world better for future generations? If not, let’s not settle for the single burst of attention that a film, book or event can generate.” We were frustrated after repeatedly watching documentaries and reading books that admire the problem, only to tack on some generic DIY action steps at the end, leaving audiences feeling full of despair, uninspired and confused about what to do. To continue the conversation we started in the film, we created Earth Overshoot — an organization dedicated to changing social norms and demonstrating ways that we, as individuals and as societies, can live sustainably within the planet’s ecological limits. 

I fight every day to redefine the narrative regarding population’s role in environmental sustainability. Speaking at conferences, screening the film and partnering with like-minded organizations, I help elevate the subject from out of the shadows. My goal is to correct misconceptions of what is considered normal and to support women who wish to limit or forgo childbearing in the face of societal pressure. 

I believe that forgoing children in the face of climate change is a chance for women to show strength, power and control.

When I was growing up, the only story we, as women heard, was one that followed a pre-ordained script. Step 1: school; step 2: marriage; step 3: children. Today, we need to be able to pause throughout our lives to assess and determine our next move. Only then can we move beyond making the decision to have children based on some outdated, misguided and destructive obligation to society and put the focus where it should be — on the best interests of the child, the parent and the planet.  

And what is the best way to promote having fewer children in a voluntary, human rights context? Ensuring that high-quality family planning is available for all women who want it, anywhere in the world, and increasing access to education for girls. Women with more education manage their reproductive health more, and have fewer and healthier children.

Studies have also shown that when women delay or forgo having children, there are not only environmental benefits, but the economic, health, and educational prospects of the mother and child rise dramatically. Shouldn’t we view this decision to promote smaller families as opting for quality over quantity? Do we want a world of more people with less opportunity for good health, peace and prosperity, or fewer people with more of each?

I believe that forgoing children in the face of climate change is a chance for women to show strength, power and control. Women have the strength to heal the planet, women have the power to give the children they do have the best possible future, and women should have the control to make decisions about their own bodies — decisions that affect their lives, and the future of our planet. 

Women don’t have to do it alone. There is a role we all can play, men and women, young and old, to promote a culture that recognizes the value of small families and supports women when they delay or forgo children. We can all support organizations that provide women access to high-quality reproductive health care and invest in girls’ education, and we can advocate — at local, national and international levels — for the resources and policy changes needed to help heal the environment and reduce ecological overshoot. We can all help to ease the burdens placed on the Earth’s mothers — and to ease the burdens we all place on Mother Earth. 

For more content and to be part of the “This New World” community, follow our Facebook page.

HuffPost’s “This New World” series is funded by Partners for a New Economy and the Kendeda Fund. All content is editorially independent, with no influence or input from the foundations. If you have an idea or tip for the editorial series, send an email to thisnewworld@huffpost.com.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

‘Shit Rolls Downhill’: Epstein Death Shines Light On Federal Prison System

Jeffrey Epstein’s apparent suicide inside the federally run Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan shocked the country. How could officials allow one of the most high-profile prisoners in the U.S. to end his life, especially since he had just tried and failed less than a month ago? Conspiracy theories are everywhere: It must be murder at the hands of one of Epstein’s powerful and as-yet-unnamed co-conspirators in his allegedly widespread child sex trafficking operation. 

But the truth is almost certainly more mundane. “When there’s more than one possible explanation for an occurrence, the simplest one is usually correct,”  said Erik Heipt, an attorney who has litigated a number of jail death lawsuits. “People commit suicide in jails, in prisons, all the time.”

“Tragically, there’s nothing out of the ordinary about what happened to Mr. Epstein, and therefore no reason to resort to bizarre conspiracy theories,” said David Fathi, the director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s national prison project. “This is just the, you know, baseline dysfunction of prisons and jails and how suicide prevention in most prisons and jails is a joke.”

Moreover, the fact Epstein was in the hands of the federal government doesn’t necessarily mean he getting superior supervision than he would at a county jail. The Federal Bureau of Prisons, like many law enforcement agencies, is badly understaffed and operates largely in the dark, with an opaque internal affairs system that often fails to hold officers accountable.

The swift accountability that’s taken place this week, with several employees already transferred or placed on leave in an investigation spearheaded by the attorney general himself, is perhaps the only thing unusual about Epstein’s death. Otherwise, he’s just another grim data point in the nation’s stunning inability to keep its prisoners alive.

“It’s amazing how often [records] are faked.”

The New York Times reported that the two overworked staffers assigned to Epstein’s unit ― one of whom wasn’t working as a corrections officer but was forced to take on that role due to staffing shortages ― fell asleep and falsified records saying they had performed checks as required.

Fake cell checks are “extremely, extremely common” said Heipt. “In almost every jail death case I’ve handled, you have that. Often for entire shifts, where a guard is documenting a check ― prisoner OK, or signing their initials at a particular time during a 12-hour shift. It’s amazing how often those things are faked.” 

“When you pencil-whip shit, that means that you’re falsifying records,” one BOP employee explained. “If you wanna lie and do some underhanded shit, you’ve gotta deal with it.” 

There’s nothing out of the ordinary about what happened to Mr. Epstein. …This is just the baseline dysfunction of prisons and jails and how suicide prevention in most prisons and jails is a joke. David Fathi, American Civil Liberties Union

BOP union officials have been raising the alarm about staffing shortages for years. In a process called “augmentation,” BOP managers have been forcing people who aren’t corrections officers to guard inmates. Union officials warned it would turn deadly.

“My officers are getting mandated on a daily basis,” said Joe Rojas, a BOP employee and union official who works at a facility in Florida. “You have officers working doubles three out of five days a week. That’s just insane.”

“They’re getting bonuses and we’re understaffed,” said one BOP employee speaking on the condition of anonymity, referring to recent USA Today reporting on bonus payouts to prison executives. “What kind of fucking sense does that make?”

Every inmate should be monitored according to regulations, but Epstein, in particular, demanded close attention ― not only because of the sprawling nature of his alleged crimes but because they involved sex offenses that could have sent him to prison until his death.

HuffPost’s jail death database, which sought to track jail deaths in the one-year period after Sandra Bland’s death in July 2015, includes at least 24 suicides in which the deceased defendant was facing sex crime charges or was a registered sex offender. That’s nearly 10% of the suicides included in the database, which falls short of capturing every jail death that happened in that timeframe.

At least a dozen of the defendants in the database who died by suicide were charged in sex crimes that involved minor victims. Federal jail deaths data, last released when Barack Obama was still president, doesn’t break down how many local jail inmates who died by suicide were facing sex-related charges.

Westlake Legal Group 5d51cdde3b00004b00daeeca ‘Shit Rolls Downhill’: Epstein Death Shines Light On Federal Prison System

Anadolu Agency via Getty Images The swift accountability that’s taken place is perhaps the only thing unusual about Jeffrey Epstein’s death at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.

Few Consequences For Correctional Officers

Epstein was incarcerated in a federal correctional system that has struggled for decades to police malfeasance and incompetence from its officers and staff. It’s a system that fails to hold employees accountable, and one that union officials say dispenses discipline unequally. 

“For a long time, the BOP had a reputation of sort of being the gold standard, being a cut above state prison systems,” said Fathi of the ACLU. “I see no evidence of that. I have no reason to think that’s true. I see no reason to think it’s any better than your average state prison system.”

In a closed system like the Federal Bureau of Prisons, where there’s very little public interaction or transparency, the inmates themselves are the best way to know if things are amiss — if correctional officers are being abusive or not doing their jobs. But internal records, legal filings and interviews with former staff show that a vast majority of inmate complaints are simply ignored. 

BOP operates more than 100 facilities, employs around 35,000 people, and incarcerates more than 150,000 human beings. And if you believe its numbers, next to none of those federal prisoners are ever abused.

The bureau claims to “demonstrate uncompromising ethical conduct” in all its actions, yet most employee conduct issues are being handled by local wardens and overseen by BOP’s Office of Internal Affairs, an office with a staff of around 35 people that has overseen upwards of 5,000 cases annually in recent years. More serious allegations that could result in criminal charges are first vetted by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General, the agency’s internal watchdog. 

Records obtained by HuffPost in 2017 via a Freedom of Information Act request indicate that very few inmate complaints were sustained, or confirmed, in a timely matter. In fiscal years 2012, 2013 and 2014, the Office of Internal Affairs logged more than 1,000 abuse of inmate complaints. But the percentage of complaints sustained, always low, dropped even further in recent years. Those records — annual reports the Office of Internal Affairs sent to the Office of the Inspector General — were later uploaded to BOP’s website, along with reports from the 2016 and 2017 fiscal year.

There’s lot of interesting data in the reports. But one thing really sticks out: The system almost never believes inmates who allege they were abused.

The reports reveal a minuscule number of sustained “abuse of inmate” complaints each year from 2010 to 2016, often in the single digits. 

The BOP numbers don’t include those corrections officers who were indicted in particularly egregious use-of-force cases. Still, the extraordinarily low numbers in a massive corrections bureaucracy signal broader issues with BOP’s internal affairs system.

The system almost never believes inmates who allege they were abused.

Steve J. Martin, an expert on internal affairs systems, told HuffPost that BOP’s “incredulous” numbers were not believable and make clear that “something’s amiss.” When local officials review complaints, he said, there’s a natural tendency to side with or go easy on corrections officers. (For this article, HuffPost has incorporated interviews with experts and former inmates done in 2017. Statistics are from the most recent available data sets.)

“Some of them just push the paper through and approve everything that hits their eyes unless it’s a smoking gun, egregious, we-can’t-bury-this one,” Martin said. “What warden wants to report to their regional director, ‘Hey, we had five abuses or excessive incidents of force last month?’ None!”

Overall, a relatively small number of the BOP’s massive workforce is subject to discipline: The 2017 fiscal year data shows that 19 employees were terminated, six were allowed to retire, 55 resigned, 72 were suspended and 101 received a written reprimand.

A report issued 15 years ago by DOJ’s inspector general found inconsistencies in the disciplinary system and that BOP employees generally believed higher-ranking employees were not subject to the same standards. That belief endures.

Documents the Justice Department filed in federal court in response to a lawsuit by a former BOP employee offer some insight into how BOP has resolved disciplinary cases against other employees at the Metropolitan Correctional Center, where Epstein died. 

One officer was suspended for a day for failing to follow policy and provide accurate information during an official investigation, though a seven-day suspension was recommended. An officer who drove under the influence was given a letter of reprimand, though a five-day suspension was recommended. Another officer was suspended for three calendar days for off-duty misconduct for an argument with his girlfriend that got “out of hand.” An officer who engaged in unprofessional conduct and provided an inaccurate statement was suspended for one day. An officer who got into an altercation while off-duty and carrying his firearm, which “could have resulted in loss of life,” was suspended for 21 days.

“Prisons are black boxes. They are uniquely closed and inaccessible parts of our government,” Fathi said. “When you combine that secrecy and a lack of oversight and lack of transparency with an unpopular, politically powerless and literally captive population, it’s a recipe for bad outcomes.”

It’s a challenge to maintain a high ethical standard in understaffed facilities with relatively low pay, especially in a competitive economy. 

“It was well-known at [Federal Correctional Institution] Cumberland that there were corrections officers who were just robbing the place blind,” said Kevin Ring, a former federal inmate who now serves a president of Families Against Mandatory Minimums. Ring said they were stealing heavy equipment like lawnmowers, or turkeys at Thanksgiving that were meant for inmates. He said guards would order equipment that they didn’t need, and then it would disappear. 

“Who would you tell? For most people, there’s a whistleblower hotline or whatever, but for inmates, you’re not going to take that up with this guy’s colleagues,” Ring said. “I just think the problem is transparency. No one is looking, and they keep the prisons closed by saying it is a security risk or public safety issue, but I just think there’s no accountability.” 

Westlake Legal Group 5d549ed62200005500f5c217 ‘Shit Rolls Downhill’: Epstein Death Shines Light On Federal Prison System

ASSOCIATED PRESS ACLU staff attorney Reginald T. Shuford, left, and David C. Fathi, right, at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., on April 6, 2004.

Fathi said that a “code of silence” discourages staffers from reporting misconduct, and that problem was particularly large when it’s inmates’ word against officers. “When corrections officers use force, it takes place behind closed doors where there are no witnesses except other officers and prisoners,” he said. The BOP figures strike him as “totally not credible” for an institution that incarcerates upwards of 150,000 people.

Piper Kerman, whose book about serving federal prison time, “Orange Is The New Black,” inspired the Netflix series, told HuffPost in 2017 that there’s a “strong disincentive” to complain about a staff member’s actions. 

“There’s just this tendency to endure it, because seeking remedy is a cumbersome, complicated, lengthy process that can draw retribution,” Kerman said. Early on in the production of “Orange is the New Black,” Kerman recalled telling creator Jenji Kohan that the portrayal of the guards was too generous.

“I do remember Jenji was like ‘Oh, Piper says we’re making the guards too nice.’ There are obviously people who work in correctional facilities who take their jobs very seriously in terms of the job of rehabilitation and see and are concerned about [the] humanity of the people who are there,” Kerman said, adding that it wasn’t the standard.

“The construct of a prison is predicated on inequality. Prisoners are prisoners and have few to no rights, and are functioning in this unequal relationship to anyone who is staff… That kind of inequality will always, in my opinion, give rise to abuse.” 

“Does the BOP get away with far less scrutiny? I think there’s no question of that,” Kerman said. “At the end of the day, there’s just not that much accountability.”

You know that old saying, ‘Shit rolls downhill?’ They’re gonna blame the COs. It’s the Department of Justice under Trump. Joe Rojas, BOP employee and union official who works at a facility in Florida

“When you file, they use it against you,” said Jason Hernandez, who was serving a life term until Obama commuted his sentence. “If you were an inmate that was causing trouble in the SHU, they would purposefully put you into the room with one of these individuals so they could assault you. They’d give the guy a couple of cigarettes or something. That shit’s so hard to prove.”

Eric Young, the national union president, said there was a “systemic problem” of untimely investigations at BOP facilities and that corrections officers would have complaints hanging over their heads for far too long. 

“I’ve had some cases where an employee has admitted wrongdoing, and yet the Bureau sits on [it] for a year,” he said. 

Young said it was “not true” that inmate complaints weren’t taken seriously. “The Bureau will take very seriously and investigate inmate complaints,” Young said, adding that the process was very lengthy and methodical. “Discipline is not designed to be punitive, it’s designed to be corrective,” Young said.

“They’re always gonna put it on the small fish.”

An FBI investigation and inspector general probe into Epstein’s death are already underway. The Justice Department has also announced the temporary reassignment of MCC’s warden and has placed two staffers on administrative leave. Rojas and other employees expect the Justice Department to scapegoat low-level employees for the consequences of BOP’s failure to maintain adequate staffing levels.

“You know that old saying, ‘Shit rolls downhill?’ They’re gonna blame the COs,” Rojas said. “It’s the Department of Justice under Trump. And I don’t want to get political, but they’re the ones that instituted the staffing cuts and the hiring freeze, and now they’re upset based on what they did, because this is the result of their policies.”

The decision to pull Epstein off suicide watch after a reported attempt last month will likely come under close scrutiny. One BOP employee said that suicide watch is an intense and boring job, and it’s costly because it requires overtime. But going to jail and facing charges that are likely to send you to prison for the rest of your life is a traumatic experience, especially for someone who lived a high-flying life like Epstein.

“He’s a billionaire. Think about the culture shock, going from owning an island in the Caribbean to a 6-foot-9 cell. That is traumatic with any human being,” Rojas said.

“They’re always gonna put it on the small fish,” one BOP employee told HuffPost. “At the end of the day, that guy shouldn’t have been pulled off suicide watch … What about management? What about the warden and the chief psychologist?” 

“There’s no accountability for these managers,” the employee said. “[But] our line staff are going to get their heads chopped off because they’ve been working so much fucking overtime that they fell asleep.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

This Fiery Trick Will Kick Up Your Peach Crumble

In the summer months, I’d argue that there is no tastier fruit than a peach at its peak. What’s better than standing over your sink eating a peach with the juices dripping down your arm as you try to savor every last bite?

One of my favorite ways to enjoy this summer “candy” is by baking with peaches. I especially love turning them into a delicious peach crumble. Crumbles are a lazy man’s pie: They take only minutes to assemble and have all the similar characteristics of pie – jammy, baked fruit with a crispy, buttery topping ― without the hassle of making, chilling and rolling pie dough.

The base starts with fresh, ripe peaches that are mixed with brown sugar, lime zest and juice, cinnamon and my secret ingredient, candied ginger. On its own, candied ginger reminds me of something a grandmother might pull out of her purse as a “snack” while talking about how good it is for the digestive tract. No thanks. But when it’s paired with peaches, it adds a spicy kick to help cut the sweetness of the fruit.

Westlake Legal Group 5d4477613b00003700dae2e0 This Fiery Trick Will Kick Up Your Peach Crumble

Kelly Paige

The topping of this dessert is the best part. It starts with another of granny’s favorites, gingersnap cookies. Gingersnaps are blitzed in a food processor until they’re fine crumbs and then mixed with old-fashioned oats, flour, cold butter and more sugar to make a streusel-like topping. It’s crunchy, buttery, gingery and it works so well with the warm and gooey baked peaches. The topping freezes beautifully, so don’t be afraid to double this recipe and store half in the freezer for next time you’re having a dessert emergency.

The best part? This dessert tastes just as good served cold for breakfast the next morning. Or, if you’re like my husband, you can blend it into vanilla milkshakes.

Our days with perfectly ripe summer peaches are numbered, so go grab yourself a few and make this dessert tonight before it’s too late.

Westlake Legal Group 5d44772a2600004f000462ad This Fiery Trick Will Kick Up Your Peach Crumble

Kelly Paig

Peach Crumble with Gingersnap Topping

Serves 4-6

Peach Filling

  • Juice and zest of 1 lime

  • 1/2 teaspoon kosher salt

Gingersnap Topping

  • 1 cup old fashioned oats

Directions

1. Preheat oven to 350 degrees Fahrenheit. Grease an 8″x11′ baking dish with nonstick cooking spray

2. In a large bowl, combine sliced peaches, cinnamon, candied ginger, light brown sugar, lime juice and zest, vanilla, salt and flour. Stir until evenly combined and pour into bottom of prepared baking dish.

3. In another large bowl, combine crushed cookies, oats, flour, brown sugar and salt. Add butter and blend into the oat mixture with a fork, pastry cutter or your fingers. Work the butter until the mixture is crumbly and no dry bits remain.

4. Sprinkle oat topping evenly over peaches.

5. Bake, uncovered, until filling is bubbly and top is golden brown, about 35 to 40 minutes. If topping is getting too dark before filling is done, cover with aluminum foil and keep cooking.

6. Serve warm or at room temperature with whipped cream or ice cream.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Jeter noncommittal on Mattingly’s future as manager

His club seemingly headed to a second consecutive last-place finish in the NL East, Miami Marlins CEO Derek Jeter isn’t ready to disclose whether manager Don Mattingly will return next season.

“There hasn’t been a decision yet,” Jeter said before Miami hosted the Los Angeles Dodgers on Wednesday night. “To be honest with you, we’ve been so focused on the trade deadline and see what we could do with it.”

“At the end of every year, we sit down and evaluate all members of the organization, whether it’s the manager, coaches, player development, scouting, front office,” he said.

Mattingly is in the final year of a four-year contract. The former Dodgers manager was hired by ex-owner Jeffrey Loria prior to the 2016 season.

The Marlins began the day with a 44-74 record that was the worst in the National League.

Jeter, the public face of the ownership group that purchased the club from Loria before the 2017 season, credited Mattingly for his leadership during the team’s rebuild. Miami’s new ownership traded former MVP Giancarlo Stanton and All-Stars Christian Yelich, Marcell Ozuna and J.T. Realmuto for prospects.

“To be fair to Donnie, it’s something we need to talk about sooner rather than later,” Jeter said. “There are a lot of things that go into it. Donnie has done a good job.”

Mattingly said he would like to return.

“I’d love to be back, especially if they want me back,” Mattingly said. “I talked about it from the very beginning — I’m comfortable with whatever happens, whatever way it goes.”

“I came here to hopefully turn this thing around, get this going in the right direction. Obviously, there was a little bit of a bump in the road in the middle with the ownership change and obviously with a different direction,” he said.

Mattingly and Jeter were teammates with the New York Yankees in 1995 — it was Mattingly’s last season and Jeter’s first in the majors.

Westlake Legal Group MLB-Don-Mattingly Jeter noncommittal on Mattingly's future as manager fox-news/sports/mlb/miami-marlins fox-news/sports/mlb fnc/sports fnc eebde8cd-8598-505c-8653-62f57380112a Associated Press article   Westlake Legal Group MLB-Don-Mattingly Jeter noncommittal on Mattingly's future as manager fox-news/sports/mlb/miami-marlins fox-news/sports/mlb fnc/sports fnc eebde8cd-8598-505c-8653-62f57380112a Associated Press article

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Medicare-for-all would help pay for long-term care. Why don’t more people know that?

Westlake Legal Group h2J9XXqsJ6GFTKS-ukD5qPbssujWoeui5fJSgvub_ow Medicare-for-all would help pay for long-term care. Why don’t more people know that? r/politics

I KEEP saying this. STOP with these long term pie in the sky issues and stick to the things affecting people RIGHT NOW: Tax Cuts For The Rich – Tons of people paying WAY MORE taxes last year.

Prescription Drug Prices – dont know what to do here, but something has to be done and fast.

I am a M4A supporter, but that dosen’t need to come up, sneak it in once a good candidate is in the White House. Putting money back in peoples pockets with Tax relief (and sticking it to the RICH) and lowered prescription drug prices. ALL YOU NEED.

ESPECIALLY IF THERE IS A RECESSION, THAT LET’S FACE IT, ONCE IS COMING.

We need a big dip in the economy soon and till the day after election day to save us.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Tea Party Ex-Congressman Joe Walsh Apologizes For Helping Elect ‘Unfit Con Man’ Trump

Westlake Legal Group OErQSn4d7lZSYZ7TEd04aJjl8_91z_allVsvTdSoWPM Tea Party Ex-Congressman Joe Walsh Apologizes For Helping Elect ‘Unfit Con Man’ Trump r/politics

As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.


I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Many Democrats Love Elizabeth Warren. They Also Worry About Her.

COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa — Senator Elizabeth Warren has built the most formidable campaign organization of any Democratic presidential candidate in the first nominating states, raised an impressive $25 million without holding high-dollar fund-raisers, and has risen steadily in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.

Few candidates inspire as much enthusiasm as she does among party voters, too, from the thousands who turned out for her speech at the Iowa State Fair last weekend to the supporters in this western Iowa city who repeat her catchphrases, wear her buttons and describe themselves as dazzled by her intellect and liberal ideas.

Yet few candidates also inspire as much worry among these voters as Ms. Warren does.

Even as she demonstrates why she is a leading candidate for the party’s nomination, Ms. Warren is facing persistent questions and doubts about whether she would be able to defeat President Trump in the general election. The concerns, including from her admirers, reflect the head-versus-heart debate shaping a Democratic contest increasingly being fought over the meaning of electability and how to take on Mr. Trump

Interviews with more than three dozen Democratic voters and activists in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina this summer, at events for Ms. Warren as well as other 2020 hopefuls, yield a similar array of concerns about her candidacy.

These Democrats worry that her uncompromising liberalism would alienate moderates in battleground states who are otherwise willing to oppose the president. Many fear Ms. Warren’s past claims of Native American ancestry would allow Mr. Trump to drown out her policy message with his attacks and slurs against her. They cite her professorial style and Harvard background to argue that she might struggle to connect with voters from more modest circumstances than hers, even though she grew up in a financially strained home in Oklahoma.

And there are Democrats who, chastened by Hillary Clinton’s defeat in 2016, believe that a woman cannot win in 2020.

“I think she’s terrific but my questions about her are, can she get elected with the negativity, with all the stuff that’s thrown at her?” asked Rick Morris, a New Hampshire carpenter who attended a house party for Ms. Warren there last month. “Usually in the primary I vote for whoever I like the most, but this one I will put in electability.”

[Sign up for our politics newsletter and join the conversation around the 2020 presidential race.]

The concerns about Ms. Warren partly reflect ingrained assumptions that women or candidates of color would have a harder time winning the presidency than white men. This view has been repeatedly expressed on the campaign trail by some Democrats who believe Mr. Trump’s unlikely victory, after two terms of the nation’s first black president, amounted to a warning sign about the American electorate’s openness to change.

Many moderate Democrats see the field’s current front-runner, Joseph R. Biden Jr., the 76-year-old former vice president, as a safer option than Ms. Warren and other candidates. But Mr. Biden’s lead in the polls is partly based on strong name recognition, and his recent gaffes and middling debate performances have raised questions about whether he has the agility to defeat Mr. Trump.

ImageWestlake Legal Group merlin_159132102_5c8b86d3-9523-474b-a0e9-ae4091256579-articleLarge Many Democrats Love Elizabeth Warren. They Also Worry About Her. Warren, Elizabeth Voting and Voters Trump, Donald J Presidential Election of 2020 Harris, Kamala D Democratic Party Biden, Joseph R Jr

Ms. Warren’s remarks at the Iowa State Fair on Saturday drew thousands of people, many of whom mobbed her for selfies and autographs afterward.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Many voters interviewed are now wrestling with whether to elevate a candidate who captures their imaginations, and progressive ambitions, or to rally more cautiously behind a Democrat who they perceive as having a better chance of building a broad coalition of Democrats, independents and disaffected Republicans to fulfill their most urgent goal: ejecting Mr. Trump from the White House.

The Massachusetts senator’s top campaign aides are acutely aware of their challenge on questions about Ms. Warren’s viability. They are taking a series of steps to allay the concerns, perhaps most notably arming her in the last debate with the talking point that conventional wisdom also suggested that both Mr. Trump and former President Barack Obama were risky nominees because they broke from the traditional commander-in-chief mold. After the debate, Warren aides blasted clips of that remark from her social media accounts.

But even after Ms. Warren turned in two well-received debate performances, a Quinnipiac survey showed she had not made gains on the question of who has the best chance to beat Mr. Trump: Just nine percent said she did, while 49 percent pointed to Mr. Biden.

In an interview before a town hall meeting in western Iowa last week, Ms. Warren, acknowledging the questions about her candidacy, said there was only one overarching way to quiet the skeptics.

“Nothing will overcome people’s worries more than success,” she said.

But Ms. Warren also demonstrated that she was still uncertain about how to address Mr. Trump’s taunts about the Native American heritage she once claimed. Her attempt to prove that ancestry with a DNA test last year drew fierce criticism from the right and left as well as some Native American groups; she stood by the DNA test for months, then apologized for it and the claims.

Having been told by advisers to generally avoid engaging on the issue, Ms. Warren struggled in the interview to articulate an answer about whether she would respond to Mr. Trump head-on when he uses his frequent slur for her, “Pocahontas,” or pivot to a more policy-centered rebuttal.

“My job is not to be drawn off into that,” she said.

And she had little to say about why, after pledging to a Native American group last year that she would always highlight their issues when her heritage is raised, she has quietly backed away from the commitment by typically remaining silent when Mr. Trump makes his attacks.

“I still, I am working on being a good partner,” Ms. Warren said, haltingly. “And the best way to be a good partner is to walk the walk.”

She was more sure-footed on an issue that has prompted alarm among elected Democratic officials and operatives: her refusal to hold fund-raisers or seek four-figure checks from the party’s wealthy donors.

While she has made this commitment central to her primary campaign, implicitly scorning her rivals who are raising money in the traditional fashion, Ms. Warren said she would not shun big money if she becomes her party’s nominee.

Even as Ms. Warren demonstrates why she is a leading candidate for the Democratic nomination, she is facing persistent questions, even from admirers, about whether she would be able to defeat President Trump in the general election.CreditBridget Bennett for The New York Times

“I don’t believe in unilateral disarmament,” she said, making clear that her policy only applies in the primary and not in the general election, when Mr. Trump is expected to lean on a range of well-heeled individuals and interests.

But as Ms. Warren increasingly becomes a top contender for the nomination, Democrats are thinking harder about what that would mean for their prospects.

In Iowa, a former chairwoman of the state Democratic Party, Sue Dvorsky, endorsed Senator Kamala Harris last weekend after confiding to friends that she felt Ms. Warren’s liberalism would be a liability in a general election, according to a Democratic official who spoke to Ms. Dvorsky.

It’s a sentiment that many voters expressed at Warren events.

Some of these Democrats prefer Mr. Biden, viewing him as an acceptable option to a cross-section of voters, but others are eager to find a middle ground between the consensus-oriented former vice president and progressive firebrands like Ms. Warren and Senator Bernie Sanders.

“If it were completely up to me, I’d vote for her,” said Jessie Sagona, who also came to see Ms. Warren last month in New Hampshire. “But I kind of feel like, do we need somebody in the middle like Kamala or Pete,” referring to Ms. Harris and Mayor Pete Buttigieg. Ms. Sagona said she had not fully made up her mind but was weighing the importance of “thinking strategically.”

Jan Phelps, who came to see Senator Cory Booker at a house party of his own in New Hampshire last month, articulated a similar calculation.

“I love her enthusiasm. She’s smart, she’s very smart. I think she would make an amazing president,” said Ms. Phelps, before quickly adding: “I’m worried about whether she can win. I worry that she’s being pulled even further to the left and that concerns me. Because we need to win, we just need to win.”

[Keep up with the 2020 field with our candidate tracker.]

Ms. Warren is moving aggressively to address such concerns. Her aides are distributing “Win With Warren” signs at events to implicitly address the electability question. Her campaign also used a town hall meeting she held in Oakland to interview attendees, in the fashion of an on-the-scene local TV news reporter, about whether they thought she could win. (The verdict in the video: a resounding yes.)

And in addition to her debate remark on skepticism about Mr. Trump and Mr. Obama’s candidacies — which reflects a theory of her top adviser, Dan Geldon, that most modern presidents were seen as vulnerable nominees — Ms. Warren is also making comparisons between this race and her 2012 defeat of then-Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

“People told me you can’t win,” she recalled to attendees at her town hall in Council Bluffs. “And you can’t win because Massachusetts is not going to elect a woman to the Senate or the governor’s office.”

Ms. Warren has risen steadily in Iowa and New Hampshire polls.CreditErin Schaff/The New York Times

Yet a few minutes before the Warren event here got underway, one of her admirers made this very point about Ms. Warren’s White House hopes. Gail Houghton, a retiree, said flatly that she did not think Ms. Warren could win the presidency because of her gender.

“They’re just not ready yet,” Ms. Houghton said of the American electorate, adding that Mr. Trump’s divisive conduct has normalized prejudices. “It’s getting worse because we’re getting permission to behave this way from the top.”

But, Ms. Houghton was quick to add, she believed Ms. Warren would “make a wonderful vice president.”

Democratic activists in other states say much the same. Approaching a reporter in June at Representative James Clyburn’s annual fish fry in South Carolina, Ed Nelson waxed nostalgic about the Obama years before proffering his preferred pairing.

“I hope it’s a Biden-Warren ticket,” Mr. Nelson said. “That’s what I want, that’s what I want.”

Ms. Warren’s supporters bridle at what they believe is the condescending nature of projecting her as a running mate, as do supporters of Ms. Harris, who is also often mentioned as a possible No. 2.

Several Democrats voluntarily mentioned both women as candidates they are eyeing in the primaries — and assessed them through the prism of electability. Some said they viewed Ms. Harris as a stronger choice, for reasons that they explain by pointing to 2016.

“I think one thing that happened with Hillary last time, people were like ‘ehhhh,’ they didn’t like the personality,” said Jackie Williams who attended an event for Ms. Harris last month near New Hampshire’s Lake Winnipesaukee. Ms. Williams said Ms. Harris had the edge with her, pointing to her easy “interaction with the crowd.”

At a Democratic picnic outside Des Moines a few weeks earlier, Marnie Lloyd said of Ms. Harris, “I don’t think we’ll hear the ‘she’s not likable’ we heard with Hillary.” Ms. Lloyd said she was less confident about Ms. Warren avoiding such a critique.

Judging personality and likability is subjective, of course, and those characteristics tend to be part of a double standard faced by female candidates. Many Democrats like Ms. Warren — some wait for an hour to take pictures with her — and she continues to gain supporters. But even among some of her enthusiasts, the questions about her vulnerabilities linger.

In Council Bluffs, waiting to see Ms. Warren take the stage, Herb Christensen was succinct about why he liked her — and why he worried about her as the nominee.

“My god, she’s smart,” he said. “Pocahontas, that’s the only thing.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Trump Delays a Holiday Tax, but Toymakers Are Still Worried

Westlake Legal Group 15DC-TOY-01-facebookJumbo Trump Delays a Holiday Tax, but Toymakers Are Still Worried United States Politics and Government Trump, Donald J Jr Toys International Trade and World Market Customs (Tariff) China

WASHINGTON — Toymakers breathed a little easier this week when President Trump announced plans to delay tariffs on many goods from China — but their relief may not last long.

The delay pushes a new 10 percent tariff on some Chinese imports to December from September, and allows companies and retailers to avoid paying an additional tax on the goods they’re bringing into the United States for the all-important holiday shopping season. Yet toymakers are already looking ahead to next year’s holiday season, and fretting about the crippling uncertainty that the president’s on-again, off-again trade policy has created for them.

“Everybody is just on this roller coaster, trying to stay one step ahead or keep up with this inconsistent, irrational trade policy that is coming out of the White House,” said Jay Foreman, the chief executive of Basic Fun, which manufactures toys like Lite-Brite, K’nex building sets and Lincoln Logs, the vast majority of which are made in China. “It’s just a nightmare.”

Mr. Trump and his advisers have urged business leaders to stay focused on the larger picture: that the administration is trying to secure a historic trade deal with China. They say that China has gamed economic rules for decades, leading to the loss of millions of American manufacturing jobs, and that the United States must do what it can to change the behavior now.

After months of negotiations, however, the United States and China appear no closer to a deal. Meanwhile, the pain of the tariffs is being felt by American consumers and businesses, and forcing companies, where they can, to reconfigure their global supply chains.

Some companies are moving factories out of China to countries like Vietnam and India to avoid being hit by the tariffs. But that strategy also introduces risks for an industry, focused on children, that depends on carefully controlled facilities and strict health and safety standards.

Mr. Trump’s latest round of tariffs would have affected nearly $300 billion of Chinese products as of Sept. 1, on top of a 25 percent tariff that is already in place on roughly $250 billion of goods.

Instead, tariffs on about $160 billion of consumer products, including toys, shoes, apparel, laptops and mobile phones, will be delayed until Dec. 15, while tariffs on a few items will be canceled altogether.

The move does not appear to be a response to any concessions by China in the trade negotiations. “We’re doing this for the Christmas season,” Mr. Trump told reporters on Tuesday.

“Obviously, toys are a sympathetic product,” said Matt McAlvanah, a spokesman for the United States trade representative in the Obama administration who is now a policy analyst for Farmers for Free Trade, an anti-tariff advocacy group. “I think it’s an admission that it would be politically unpopular to see price increases during the holiday season.”

Toymakers both large and small say they don’t have the ability to absorb cost increases, and would have to almost immediately raise prices. The typical toy in the United States retails for only $10, and profit margins for some of them may be just pennies on the dollar, according to the Toy Association, an industry group.

Mr. Foreman, who sources 92 percent of his products from China, said that if tariffs had gone into effect as planned, they would have eaten up two-thirds or more of his profit for the year.

But the company must now decide whether to try to speed up product shipments to beat the new tariff date in December. That could save money, but will tie up capital and will crowd distribution warehouses with products. For many companies, the large outlays and disappearing profit margins risk throwing lending covenants with banks out of whack.

“It just causes chaos from the top to the bottom of the whole business model,” Mr. Foreman said.

Moving operations out of China to lower-cost countries without tariffs may not eliminate the issue, either. Mr. Trump has threatened tariffs on Mexico, for example, to try to get the country to do more to restrain migrants. The administration has also weighed tariffs on Vietnam because of that country’s rising exports to the United States.

Hasbro, which is based in Rhode Island and makes Nerf, Transformers, Play-Doh and Disney Princess merchandise, said last month that it would aim to produce just half of the goods it sells in the American market in China by the end of 2020. It currently makes about two-thirds there. Much of that production will go to India and Vietnam.

Hasbro has said that it must make this shift slowly. At a hearing on the tariffs in Washington in June, John Frascotti, Hasbro’s chief operating officer, said that suppliers in China had been trained to meet strict American product safety standards, and that there was no readily available alternate supply chain outside the country.

China’s factories have not always had the best reputation. The country has faced scandals over toxic infant formula, dog food, drywall and other products. In 2007, Mattel was forced to recall nearly one million toys that had been covered in lead paint by a contract manufacturer in China.

But China’s stature as a supplier has improved. International companies have carefully policed supply chains, and turned to external auditors to ensure rules are followed. China has set up test labs that ensure that exported toys — many of which will wind up in children’s mouths, whether they’re supposed to or not — meet rigorous American and European safety standards.

“What we see in terms of standards is that China is way above countries like Bangladesh, Malaysia and Vietnam,” said Sebastien Breteau, the chief executive of QIMA, which audits supply chains for some of the largest retailers and clothing brands in the United States.

Mr. Breteau said his company found many more instances of child labor, human trafficking, environmental violations and dangerous conditions for workers in Southeast Asia.

These violations often happen not at the factories of major companies but at the partner factories they contract with. When companies are trying to quickly relocate supply chains to get ahead of tariffs — and compete for factory space — these risks can be magnified, Mr. Breteau said.

The Toy Association, which represents Hasbro, Mattel and Lego, as well as small toymakers, said any moves in company supply chains were being done in a measured way, to make sure the same strict safety standards are followed.

“We built this business with China over the last four or five decades,” said Steve Pasierb, the president of the association. “It’s going to take a decade to move.”

China’s wages are gradually rising, making it less attractive for companies looking to get labor-intensive work, like sewing clothes or assembling electronics, done inexpensively. But companies say China’s position as a factory to the world for so many products has given the country an important advantage.

It remains a one-stop shop for many manufacturers. Whether companies need a plastic doll shoe or a computer chip, it can most likely be sourced within 50 miles of a Chinese factory.

Although the administration’s aim is to bring manufacturing back to the United States, toymakers say that isn’t realistic for many low-margin products.

Jim Barber, who owns Luke’s Toy Factory in Danbury, Conn., which makes eco-friendly trucks for toddlers, said he would like to sell to more lower-income people in the United States, but he realizes that his market is the consumers who can afford to spend money to get what they want, not the majority of people for whom price is the paramount issue.

“You can go to any consumer survey you want and they say, ‘Yes, I’d be willing to pay more for an American-made toy,’” Mr. Barber said. “It’s a complete lie. You talk to any retailer and they’ll tell you that’s not true.

“Price is what sells toys,” he added. “Price and Batman.”

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com