Connect with us

Politics

motorcycle accident lawyer los angeles

Published

on

Motorcyclists understand the inherent risks that come with sharing the road. The California motorcycle accident lawyers understand this because they ride motorcycles. They understand why people ride and we understand how other drivers are the largest danger posed to a motorcyclist.

A bike offers much less protection than a car which makes any accident a greater threat to the rider. NHTSA’s 2016 statistics report that motorcycle riders are 28 times more likely to die in an accident and 6 times more likely to be injured. As an organization that is passionate about motor-sports and specializes in motorcycle injury law, the California motorcycle accident lawyers

Image result for CALIFORNIA MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT LAWYERS

IN THE EVENT OF A MOTORCYCLE ACCIDENT
If you are involved in a motorcycle accident, seek medical attention immediately. Some motorcycle accident injuries may not manifest themselves at the moment, and the pain from more injuries may be hidden by the rush of adrenalin following the crash. It is extremely important to have a checkup with a medical professional so that a baseline for your health can be established. Getting medical attention following a crash also helps us build a stronger case for you by giving us more evidence regarding the extent of your injuries.

In the wake of a crash, the rider has many issues to address to get their life back in order. Major concerns include personal injury, property damage, loss of wages if work is missed, and pain and suffering.
Motorcycle related injuries can include skin trauma like road rash, head, neck and spine injury, lacerations, and broken bones, and the recovery process can take a significant amount of time. We work with medical partners in the community on a lien basis, so regardless of your insurance plan you can get the care you need. Their payment towards your ongoing care is factored into your settlement cost, making it one less bill to worry about as you regain your health and strength.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Arranged Parenthood Is About to Lose Title X Funding Unless the Courts Step In

Temporibus autem quibusdam et aut officiis debitis aut rerum necessitatibus saepe eveniet ut et voluptates repudiandae.

Published

on

Photo: Shutterstock

It could get kicked out of the program in only days.

  • Arranged Parenthood will lose financing from a government program on account of another standard built up by the Trump organization except if bureaucratic courts venture in.
  • The standard bars centers in the Title X program, which gives family care to low-salary Americans, from performing fetus removal methods or alluding patients for premature births.
  • Arranged Parenthood gets about $60 million from Title X every year. Without those assets, it should depend on different wellsprings of pay, similar to gifts.

Arranged Parenthood says it is being constrained out of the nation’s just government financing program for family arranging because of another standard actualized by the Trump organization, except if the courts intercede, Vox reports. The association could leave the program, known as Title X, as ahead of schedule as Monday, August 19, as indicated by a letter it sent to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals today, requesting that it hinder the Trump-period rule.

The new limitation bans Title X award beneficiaries from performing premature birth methodology or alluding patients for premature births. It says associations that do as such can’t utilize cash from the program, which was set up to assistance low-salary Americans, to finance other family arranging administrations like contraception, disease screenings, and STD testing.

It was at that point unlawful to utilize government subsidizing towards premature birth systems, yet the new guideline presents Planned Parenthood and comparative wellbeing associations with an extreme decision: Receive Title X cash and quit giving or alluding premature births, or keep on offering premature births benefits yet lose financing, which would make it harder to serve low-pay networks.

Arranged Parenthood has taken an interest in Title X for just about 50 years, yet it says it will leave the program by part of the bargain, the due date to consent to the new principle, to keep on giving premature birth care and guiding. The effect of the association’s leave “will change state by state,” acting president Alexis McGill Johnson told Vox in an announcement, however it could imply that “such a large number of individuals will defer or abandon care.”

The American States Are Declaring a War on Women

he new Title X stipulation and Planned Parenthood’s fast approaching partition is a success for hostile to premature birth supporters, particularly the individuals who contend that fetus removal suppliers shouldn’t get any government subsidizing.

The confinement was first presented a year ago however was settled in March.

Arranged Parenthood gets nearly $60 million in Title X financing every year, per The Washington Post. Without the subsidizing, the association will endure noteworthy money related shot. Its facilities help 40 percent of the more than 4 million Americans who rely upon Title X for family arranging administrations and assets like conception prevention and STI screenings, as per Vice. Meanwhile, the association will depend on different wellsprings of subsidizing, similar to gifts, yet Johnson disclosed to Vox that it’s “ridiculous to figure awards or private gifts can supplant a decades-old government program.”

An activist seen holding a placard that says I Stand with...

Adversaries of the standard state it abuses laws ordering that Title X beneficiaries get unprejudiced consideration. Arranged Parenthood is suing Trump for this very reason.

Continue Reading

Politics

Celebrity Politics in Various Shapes and Sizes

Published

on

A number of authors have developed classifications of ‘types’ of the relationship between celebrity and politics. There are two broad approaches: the first focuses on the origins of the celebrity and, thus, the resources the individual utilizes in the political arena; the second is more concerned with the type of political action in which the celebrity is engaged.

Darrell West and John Orman (2003, pp. 3–4) exemplify the first approach, distinguishing

between: political newsworthy, whom they see as the classic celebrities ‘skilled at appearing on television and communicating with the general public’; legacies, mainly  ‘descendants of prominent political families’; famed non-politicos (elected officials), who are ‘responsible for their own prominence’ but move into elected office; famed known- politicos (lobbyists and spokespersons), who are also responsible for their own prominence but move into politics to promote a policy or cause without seeking office; and event celebrities, who are ‘overnight sensations who arise on the local or national scene due to some tragedy or predicament’; they cite crime victims as an example.

Maxwell Boykoff and Michael Goodman’s (2009) approach is similar. They identify six  main categories of ‘climate change celebrity politicos’ (their examples in brackets):  celebrity actors (Leonardo DiCaprio); celebrity politicians (Arnold Schwarzenegger);

celebrity athletes/sports figures (David James, an England footballer); celebrity business- people (Richard Branson); celebrity musicians (Alanis Morrisette); and celebrity public intellectuals (George Monbiot, a UK writer, and journalist).

The second approach focuses mainly on the extent and type of involvement that celebrities have in politics, regardless of the original source of their fame, although this approach also recognizes that politicians can become celebrities and use a celebrity. John Street’s (2004) straightforward classification distinguishes between the celebrity politician,  who is a traditional politician who engages ‘with the world of popular culture in order to advance their pre-established political functions and goals’, and the celebrity politician, who is an ‘entertainer who pronounces on politics and claims the right to represent people and causes, but who does so without seeking or acquiring elected office’ (Street, 2004, p. 437, 34  p. 439). Jaideep Mukherjee’s (2004, pp. 81–2) classification goes further, distinguishing

among celebrity politicians between celebrity endorsers, who promote certain policy 36  options, and celebrities who become politicians ‘t Hart and Tindall (2009) attempt to capture this variety by distinguishing four categories of celebrity involvement in politics: celebrity advocates; celebrity endorsers; celebrity  politicians; and the politician-turned-celebrity. In relation to each of these categories, they develop a series of propositions that could inform future work on celebrity politics, ensuring it is more systematic  Most celebrities attach themselves to a charity or a cause, but celebrity advocates tend to be more active and more committed policy seekers. So Angelina Jolie, Bono, and Bob Geldof have been very active over an extensive period of time, in contrast to celebrities

who pay lip-service to a cause for publicity reasons – think for example of Paris Hilton’s planned trip to Rwanda months after her stint in jail. Celebrity endorsers champion particular political parties or candidates electorally. Perhaps the most conspicuous recent example is Oprah Winfrey, who actively campaigned for Barack Obama. Obviously, the status and credibility of the celebrity are likely to be important, as is the view that the general population has of them. So as Trevor Thrall et al. (2008), whose work we consider in more detail below, found, ‘A-list’ celebrities have more impact on media coverage of events about politics and politicians than lesser celebrities. At the same time, as the Forbes poll (Forbes.com/list/celebrities) found, while some ‘A-list’ celebrities, especially Winfrey Tom Hanks and George Clooney, had a very positive impact on the images of candidates,others, including Tom Cruise and Madonna, had a negative impact.

 

Continue Reading

Politics

The Politics of 2 the Late Modernity?

Published

on

The academic literature on celebrity politics is rarely systematic; more often it is superficial and anecdotal. In

addition, most of the literature focuses either upon classifying different types/categories of celebrity politicians and their roles in politics or upon the question of whether the growth of celebrity politics undermines or enhances democracy. In this article we consider both of these issues more systematically and, in doing so, work towards a more coherent understanding of the mechanisms that influence modern governance and the operation of contemporary democracy.


As the spheres of the media, the entertainment industry and the political have begun to

intersect more visibly, the resulting phenomenon of ‘celebrity politics’ potentially affects

many facets of political life, for example, campaigns and elections (Duval, 2007), policy

agendas (Brockington, 2009) and international affairs (Clarke, 2009; Cooper, 2005).

Although systematic empirical research about its pervasiveness and impact is still lacking

(yet see Duval, 2007), there is a noticeable rise in media as well as an academic interest in

celebrity politics, reflecting the widespread belief that it is a growing phenomenon.

Celebrity politics is probably present to different degrees in different political systems

(Mukherjee, 2004; Street, 2004; West and Orman, 2003). Besides the avalanche of

commentary on ‘celebrity politics’ in tabloids, gossip magazines, blogs, fan sites and

occasionally business or news magazines, there are three strands of academic literature on

celebrity politics: first, general books on celebrity (Braudy, 1986; Cowen, 2000; Gamson,

1994; Giles, 2000; Holmes and Redmond, 2006; Monaco, 1978; Rojek, 2001; Turner,

2004), most although not all of which have chapters or sections on politics; second, books

and articles on the media and politics that to a greater or lesser extent touch on celebrity

(Boorstin, 1961; Hartley, 1996; Meyer, 2002; Perloff, 1998; Street, 2005); and, finally, a

a limited number of books and articles specifically on celebrity politics (Cooper, 2008;

Marshall, 1997; Mukherjee, 2004; Street, 2004; Van Zoonen, 2006; Weiskel, 2005; West and Orman, 2003).

Unfortunately, the academic literature on celebrity politics is rarely systematic; more often

it is superficial and anecdotal. In addition, most of the literature focuses either upon classifying different types/categories of celebrity politician and their roles in politics or

upon the question of whether the growth of celebrity politics undermines or enhances democracy. Our aim in this article is to consider both of these issues more systematically and in doing so work towards a more coherent understanding of the mechanisms that

influence modern governance and the operation of contemporary democracy.

 

Continue Reading

Trending