The symbol is the thing: we need to remove the social consent that makes it ok for the biggest corporations the world has ever known to change the chemical composition of our atmosphere.
Angel Gurria, Secretary General of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development When the world's most important military, financial, and political organizations chastise you for doing nothing about climate change, how would you respond? On Wed...
That's the same as the what ended the last ice age.
My children could see up to 6.3 degree increase.
How hot will it get in your lifetime? What are you going to do about it?
Demolishing the myth that Monsanto's engineered crops drove 270,000 Indian farmers to suicide.
- See more at: http://ksj.mit.edu/tracker/2013/03/demolishing-myth-monsantos-engineered-cr#sthash.ZeoMDUVI.dpuf
Do you really believe that health impacts distract from more important issues? because I believe they are the common thread that can unite consumers in the US into getting educated, aware and active- since we all eat food. That isn't to say that the other problems ( farmer indebtedness, ecological impacts, corporate malfeasance and capture of our government) are not just as real and just as important.
"Marissa Alexander of Jacksonville had said the state's "Stand Your Ground" law should apply to her because she was defending herself against her allegedly abusive husband when she fired warning shots inside her home in August 2010. She told police it was to escape a brutal beating by her husband, against whom she had already taken out a protective order.
...She was recently denied a new trial after appealing to the judge to reconsider her case based on Florida's controversial "Stand Your Ground" law."
As a result, people have had to argue against the Republican claim that it's Democrats who are to blame.
"On the one hand, Democrats get a basket full of nothing if they negotiate, and on the other, the only advantage they could possibly get from a shutdown is making House Republicans look like irresponsible and frighteningly powerful children--a trick that they clearly could not accomplish on their own."
I was mystified that they no longer seem to be able to say coherently what they expect to get from doing it, until I realized it's because hostage taking is not a reasonable tactic.
Do not believe for a second that the Republican House wanted to avoid a shutdown. Their first priority is to defund Obamacare--something Karl Rove and the Wall Street Journal said no sane person thought would succeed. So far Republicans are only willing to open the government if the Democrats, with this gun to their heads, give the Republican House the ability to repeal a law all by themselves. Checks and balances exist to prevent such threats from succeeding.
The executive branch can't fund itself: it requires Congress to pass budgets to do so. To do this, both House and Senate must each pass the same bill, which they (almost) always succeed at doing.
This time, however, Republicans in the House attached a wish-list of items that no sane Republican thought would be even close to making it past the Senate (this even according to Karl Rove). What do we conclude from this preposterous overstep? Not that the Democrats are inflexible: everybody, including House Republicans, knew what would happen. No, the House intended it to fail, and it has. They have been explicitly planning to shut down the government at least since August (see sources in the article).
It may have started in the 2010 elections, in which Republicans promised to shut down the government. In the year immediately after winning the house, they got into the habit of it, nearly shuttering the government four times, once trying to use the debt ceiling as a threat (which lead to the first credit downgrade in US history).
Their single hope is to make the Democrats look bad, and then they could try to use that public disapproval to force them to undo laws that were passed through democratic process.
Is it that you're already used to believing cultural core myths / propaganda, so it's easier to believe others? Or is it that there is something about the free market belief itself that interferes with the others, e.g. the idea that things do not affect or cause one another?
Here's the abstract of this paper by Stephan Lewandowsky and Klaus Oberauer, published in Psychological Science.
"Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence. Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N > 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r about 0.80 between latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientiftic findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with the perception of a consensus among scientists."
- Pennsylvania State UniversityAssistant Professor of Philosophy, 2014 - present
- DePaul UniversityVisiting Professor, 2011 - 2012
- Boston CollegeAdjunct Professor, 2013 - 2014
- Boston UniversityAdjunct Professor, 2013 - 2013
- Northeastern UniversityAdjunct Professor, 2014 - 2014
- Boston CollegePh.D. Philosophy, 2004 - 2012
- Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenMA Philosophy, 2003 - 2004
- Carleton UniversityB.Humanities, 1998 - 2002
- Katholieke Universiteit LeuvenPhilosophy, 2000 - 2001
- University of ChicagoClassics, 2009
Re: Issue 619 in clementine-player: Can't play WMA "Lossless" Files - Go...
Re: Issue 619 in clementine-player: Can't play WMA "Lossless" Files, clementi...@googlecode.com, 2/24/12 1:25 PM. Comment #3 on issue 619 by
Science of Climate Change online class starting next week on Coursera
Maybe you remember the rollout a few years ago of Open Climate 101, a massive open online class (MOOC) that was served sort of free-range fr
Google Hangouts upgrade removes ability to host Google Voice calls on yo...
Google new Hangouts messaging service is quite impressive — it takes Google's old and neglected Talk service and upgrades it with always-on
Bride marries in $36 wedding dress made of upcycled bread bag clips
How one woman saved money and found a way to recycle a huge collection of plastic bread bag clips.
Urgent: Tell our MPs to vote to STOP the Canada-China FIPA!
Breaking News: In just 24 hours, a vote in Parliament could stop the secretive and extreme Canada-China investor deal, FIPA, for good. Click
Occupy Crackdowns: Naomi Wolf's Response to My Critique Largely Evades t...
Wolf wants to have a wide-ranging discussion of everything but her many logical leaps and factual errors.
Andrew Coyne: No opposition party is going to beat the Tories until they...
The Opposition parties need to forge a purely temporary alliance, a one-time electoral pact and campaign on a platform with essentially one
Mitt Romney's Finances: Private Equity and Capital Gains
Mitt Romney's finances are criticized for good reason: here's how private equity companies like his make money.
YouTube - Robert Reich: "The REAL Public Nuisance"
Create AccountSign In. Home. BrowseMoviesUpload. Hey there, this is not a commercial interruption. You're using an outdated browser, whi