Tag Archives: times

Why You Should Eat More Sugar

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

On Monday, a prominent medical journal broke with the flurry of studies recommending that Americans eat less sugar. The Annals of Internal Medicine (AIM) published a study that reviewed nine guidelines on sugar intake and determined that they “do not meet criteria for trustworthy recommendations and are based on low-quality evidence.”

The problem with the study: The Washington-based group, The International Life Sciences Institute, that funded it is supported by sugar-peddling companies including Hershey’s, Coca-Cola, Red Bull, General Mills, McDonald’s, Nestlé, and Kellogg. Additionally, one of the authors, Joanne Slavin, is on the advisory board for one of the largest suppliers of high-fructose corn syrup.

Because of these industry ties, the study sparked outrage. Marion Nestle, a professor at New York University who studies conflicts of interest in nutrition research, told the New York Times, “This is a classic example of how industry funding biases opinion. It’s shameful.”

The outrage extended even to the pages of AIM, as the journal simultaneously released an editorial criticizing the study, calling it a “politicization of science.”

As Mother Jones reported previously, “a growing body of research suggests that sugar and its nearly chemically identical cousin, HFCS, may very well cause diseases that kill hundreds of thousands of Americans every year, and that these chronic conditions would be far less prevalent if we significantly dialed back our consumption of added sugars.” In Big Sugar’s Sweet Little Lies, Gary Taubes and Cristin Kearns Couzens chronicled the sugar lobby’s decadeslong campaign to spin its product as “a nutrient so seemingly innocuous that even the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association approved it as part of a healthy diet.”

The same story reported that “Big Sugar used Big Tobacco-style tactics to ensure that government agencies would dismiss troubling health claims against their products.” Similarly, in November, a study of historical records of the Sugar Research Foundation revealed a campaign to divert attention from the heart-health risks of sugar consumption.

It wasn’t until this year that the Food and Drug Administration introduced labels that showed added sugars in addition to total sugars. Added sugars, as Mother Jones‘ Maddie Oatman noted in 2015, are particularly harmful because they lack the fiber found in naturally occurring sugary foods (like fruit), which help regulate the absorption of food, allowing the sugar to overwhelm your system.

The lead author of the AIM paper acknowledged the industry ties to the New York Times but said he hoped people would not “throw the baby out with the bathwater.” The editor-in-chief of AIM, Dr. Christine Laine, defended the decision to publish the study even though the editors knew of the funding source’s industry connections. Laine told the New York Times, “We thought that this was something that our readers would be interested in, and we thought the methods of the systematic review were high quality.”

Original link – 

Why You Should Eat More Sugar

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Smith's, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why You Should Eat More Sugar

How Putin Got His Pet Game Show Host Elected President

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Over lunch I read today’s big New York Times story about the Russian cyberattacks aimed at disrupting the US election. It was mesmerizing even though I already knew a lot of it, and it was also depressing as hell. By the time I finished, I was pretty close to thinking that the right response would be a couple dozen cruise missiles aimed straight at Putin’s lone remaining aircraft carrier. I guess we’re all lucky I’m not the president.

There are a dozen depressing things I could highlight, but somehow I found this the most depressing of all:

By last summer, Democrats watched in helpless fury as their private emails and confidential documents appeared online day after day — procured by Russian intelligence agents, posted on WikiLeaks and other websites, then eagerly reported on by the American media, including The Times….Every major publication, including The Times, published multiple stories citing the D.N.C. and Podesta emails posted by WikiLeaks, becoming a de facto instrument of Russian intelligence.

I know: news is news. Somehow, though, that doesn’t seem sufficient. I’m still not entirely sure what the right response is to leaks like this, but simply publishing everything no matter where it came from or what its motivation no longer seems tenable. There has to be something more to editorial judgment than that.

Anyway, Putin won this round. He didn’t do it all by himself—he had plenty of help from the FBI and the media—but in the end, he got his pet game show host elected president of the United States. I hope we all live through it.

Link: 

How Putin Got His Pet Game Show Host Elected President

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How Putin Got His Pet Game Show Host Elected President

"False Flag" Is About to Become the New Benghazi

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s the latest from the New York Times correspondent in Moscow:

Carter Page, you may recall, was the guy who was a Trump advisor, and then he wasn’t, and then maybe he was. Or maybe not. It all seemed to depend on whether he was in Trump’s good graces at the time. In any case, he’s now the second Trump supporter to suggest that the hacks of Democratic Party emails were actually part of a false flag operation. And he goes even further than John Bolton, suggesting that the CIA orchestrated the whole thing.

So…is this about to become a standard talking point on the right? Is “false flag operation” going to be the new Benghazi? Stay tuned.

Link to article: 

"False Flag" Is About to Become the New Benghazi

Posted in Cyber, FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on "False Flag" Is About to Become the New Benghazi

October 29 vs. December 10: A Lesson in Editorial Judgment

Mother Jones

Today brings a reminder of the editorial judgment at work in our press corps. First, here is the New York Times on October 29, reporting on an ambiguous letter from FBI Director James Comey that literally added nothing to what we already knew:

And here is the New York Times on December 10, reporting on concrete news that the intelligence community believes a hostile foreign power played a major role in getting a game show host elected president of the United States:

More here: 

October 29 vs. December 10: A Lesson in Editorial Judgment

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on October 29 vs. December 10: A Lesson in Editorial Judgment

Trump spun his climate denial to the New York Times and lots of people fell for it

When I first saw New York Times reporters tweet the news that Donald Trump claimed in an interview to have an “open mind” about climate change and the Paris climate agreement, I thought, Who cares? He is packing his administration with fossil fuel promoters, so his latest comments just suggest that he’s camouflaging his climate denial with doublespeak and pandering.

Then I read the full transcript published Wednesday and was horrified by how these comments had been wildly misinterpreted by so many media outlets and commentators. A CNN subhead: “A new view on climate change?” An Associated Press lead sentence: “President-elect Donald Trump changed his tune on several topics — among them climate change and prosecuting Hillary Clinton — in statements Tuesday to The New York Times and on Twitter.”

They’re wrong. If you look at what he actually said in context, it’s clear that Trump hasn’t changed his mind on anything. Consider these six comments from his Times interview:

1. After Trump said “I have an open mind” on climate change, he went on to clarify that he’s open to the “other side,” which consists of people who don’t accept the scientific consensus on the issue.

THOMAS FRIEDMAN, columnist: [A]re you going to take America out of the world’s lead of confronting climate change?

TRUMP: I’m looking at it very closely, Tom. I’ll tell you what. I have an open mind to it. We’re going to look very carefully. It’s one issue that’s interesting because there are few things where there’s more division than climate change. You don’t tend to hear this, but there are people on the other side of that issue … [CNBC news anchor] Joe [Kernan] is one of them. But a lot of smart people disagree with you. I have a very open mind. And I’m going to study a lot of the things that happened on it and we’re going to look at it very carefully.

2. Another of Trump’s much-cited quotes from the interview — “I think there is some connectivity” between human activity and climate change — is not all it seems at first glance.

JAMES BENNET, editorial page editor: When you say an open mind, you mean you’re just not sure whether human activity causes climate change? Do you think human activity is or isn’t connected?

TRUMP: I think right now … well, I think there is some connectivity. There is some, something. It depends on how much. It also depends on how much it’s going to cost our companies. You have to understand, our companies are noncompetitive right now.

The context suggests that Trump’s acceptance of climate science will depend at least in part on how much climate action might cost American businesses (read: dirty energy companies and fossil fuel–reliant industries). That does not indicate a firm grasp of scientific principles.

3. Trump cited a random local temperature on a random date to suggest that the atmosphere isn’t getting hotter on average:

You know the hottest day ever was in 1890-something, 98. You know, you can make lots of cases for different views. I have a totally open mind.

This betrays a complete lack of understanding of climate change. Global warming means global average temperatures are on the rise. Climate deniers like to cherry-pick specific temperature readings, but those numbers don’t tell us anything about broader averages. The global data tell us that 16 of 17 hottest years on record have been recorded this century.

4. The main authority Trump cited on climate science during the interview was his late uncle, who died more than 30 years ago:

My uncle was for 35 years a professor at M.I.T. He was a great engineer, scientist. He was a great guy. And he was … a long time ago, he had feelings — this was a long time ago — he had feelings on this subject.

Trump did not elaborate on what those feelings were.

5. Trump isn’t too worried about global warming because he believes his golf courses will be OK. Friedman mentioned that Trump owns a handful of “beautiful” golf courses that will be threatened by sea-level rise. Trump, laughing, talked about his Doral course in Miami, which is a few miles away from the coastline:

Some will be even better because actually like Doral is a little bit off … so it’ll be perfect. … Doral will be in great shape.

And after Friedman noted that Trump’s Royal Aberdeen golf course in Scotland could go underwater, Trump responded with an indecipherable, “The North Sea, that could be, that’s a good one, right?”

6. Trump still hates wind energy:

I have a problem with wind … First of all, we don’t make the windmills in the United States. They’re made in Germany and Japan. They’re made out of massive amounts of steel, which goes into the atmosphere, whether it’s in our country or not, it goes into the atmosphere. … I don’t think [windmills] work at all without subsidy, and that bothers me, and they kill all the birds. … With that being said, there’s a place for them. But they do need subsidy. … I wouldn’t want to subsidize it.

And Trump claims his views have absolutely nothing to do with the fact that he’s fighting a wind farm proposed near his Aberdeen golf course.


By taking a few stray quotes out of context, journalists are giving the public a completely inaccurate picture of what Trump is saying and what he’s likely to do once he takes office. If Americans are to understand what’s actually happening during a Trump presidency, the media are going to have to do a lot better.

Read original article – 

Trump spun his climate denial to the New York Times and lots of people fell for it

Posted in alo, Anchor, Everyone, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized, wind energy | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Trump spun his climate denial to the New York Times and lots of people fell for it

The World According to Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here is the version of reality that Donald Trump and the Trump team have been spreading around since the election:

Trump’s victory was one of the biggest in recent history.
Trump kept a Ford plant from moving to Mexico.
Snobby New York theater elites were rude to VP-elect Mike Pence on Friday.
The demonstrations and marches following the election were the work of “professional protesters.”
The New York Times apologized for its anti-Trump coverage during the campaign.
Trump won the debates handily.
He totally could have won the Trump University lawsuit, but chose to settle for the good of the country.

It’s only been ten days so far. Can he keep this up for four years?

Link to original – 

The World According to Trump

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The World According to Trump

Who Got the Comey Headline Right?

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Here’s a question for you all to ponder. Last night I took snapshots of four newspapers after FBI director James Comey announced that the emails they had reviewed on Anthony Wiener’s computer didn’t show anything new. Here are the four headlines:

At the top left, the LA Times says the FBI has “cleared” Hillary Clinton. On the bottom left, the New York Times declines to say Clinton has been cleared, only that the new emails “don’t warrant action” against Clinton. Finally, on the right, we have the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. They use pretty loaded language, saying there are no grounds for “charges” against Clinton.

Who got it right? My take is that the word “charge” is inherently negative. It leaves readers with the impression that Clinton might be guilty after all, but has somehow managed to skate by. Given what we now know—that Clinton was careless but did nothing seriously wrong—it strikes me as putting a big thumb on the scale. If you’re going to use legalistic language, why not follow the lead of the LA Times and say that Clinton has been “cleared”? That’s what happened, after all, and it better gets the point across that this was basically good news for Clinton.

The New York Times is somewhere in between. Perhaps someone less partisan than me would find it the best compromise. For my part, I think the LA Times got it right, while the Journal and the Post screwed up. There’s nothing technically wrong with their headlines, but they leave a groundlessly sordid impression.

Continue at source:

Who Got the Comey Headline Right?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Who Got the Comey Headline Right?

What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

For the first time in decades, Americans will likely hit the voting booths on Election Day without being able to review the tax returns of one of the major presidential nominees. Though Donald Trump previously vowed to release his taxes—as all top nominees since Richard Nixon have done—he reneged on that promise and for months fiercely refused to make this basic information public, offering shifting excuses. Trump did submit the public financial disclosure form that all federal candidates must fill out, but that does not cover all the fundamentals of his finances. By withholding his tax information, Trump has ensured that the American public cannot see how much income (if any) he pocketed, how much money (if any) he paid in taxes, and how much money (if any) he donated to charities. Without his tax returns, voters are in the dark about important details regarding his sources of income and his debts.

There are many more questions about Trump’s finances and business operations that remain as the 2016 presidential campaign slouches toward its end. Trump is the owner of a private business empire with elements that have been structured in Byzantine fashion. He is a proliferate user of shell companies, as many developers are. He has tried to broker deals around the world with assorted financial players with their own agendas. He has taken on hundreds of millions of dollars in debt. There is a great deal publicly unknown about many of his ventures. Much of his deal-making—probably most—is not transparent. He is asking Americans to vote for a man who has not revealed basic information about his wide-ranging endeavors and associations.

Here is a list of Trump mysteries that will not be solved before Election Day.

* His partners: Trump lists about 500 business entities on his financial disclosure form. Many are shell companies, and if any of them have partners, there is no telling with whom Trump is in business. There is also no way to know if this is an accurate list reflecting all his dealings domestically and overseas. (These disclosures are not vetted by forensic accountants.) These entities would allow anyone seeking to gain favor with Trump to funnel investments and money to him and his family without public disclosure. As Newsweek put it, “Any government wanting to seek future influence with President Trump could do so by arranging for a partnership with the Trump Organization, feeding money directly to the family or simply stashing it away inside the company for their use once Trump is out of the White House…The partnerships are struck with some of the more than 500 entities disclosed in Trump’s financial disclosure forms; each of those entities has its own records that would have to be revealed for a full accounting of all of Trump’s foreign entanglements to be made public.” The magazine added, “The dealings of the Trump Organization reach into so many countries that it is impossible to detail all the conflicts they present in a single issue of this magazine.”

Trump’s personal financial disclosure form hints that he has international business deals in the works that are still under wraps. There are corporations listed that indicate he may be planning hotels (with or without partners) in China and Saudi Arabia—projects which he has not publicly discussed.

* Huge loans from foreign banks: After Trump’s near-crash-and-burn bankruptcies of the 1990s, major US banks stopped doing business with him. But foreign banks picked up the slack, most notably the private banking arm of Deutsche Bank, which Trump owes more than $300 million. His cozy relationship with Deutsche Bank has never been explained. A bank spokeswoman would not talk about how it came to be.

The bond between Trump and this bank poses several problems. The bank in recent months has been in trouble and compelled to sell assets. If it is forced to sell Trump’s loans—or has done so already—the public may not find out immediately (or at all). So it is possible that Trump could be secretly in hock to some overseas person or entity. Also, the Justice Department has demanded that the gigantic German bank pay $14 billion to settle claims regarding its sale of bad mortgage-backed securities in the the run-up to the 2008 financial crisis. The bank is battling this case. Were Trump to become president, he would be heading a government trying to squeeze a gargantuan fine out of a bank that has underwritten a big chunk of his business empire. That’s a super-sized conflict of interest.

Moreover, a New York Times investigation “into the financial maze of Mr. Trump’s real estate holdings” found that “companies he owns have at least $650 million in debt”—about twice the amount listed on his financial disclosure form. A portion of all this debt, the newspaper reported, is held by the Bank of China, posing another set of possible conflicts of interest. But, the Times noted, it is nearly impossible to figure out from publicly available information what Trump owes and to whom: “The full terms of Mr. Trump’s limited partnerships are not known. The current value of the loans connected to them is roughly $1.95 billion, according to various public documents.”

* His creditors: At the first presidential debate, moderator Lester Holt asked Trump about his finances: “Don’t Americans have a right to know if there are any conflicts of interest?” Trump replied, “I could give you a list of banks. I would—if that would help you, I would give you a list of banks. These are very fine institutions, very fine banks. I could do that very quickly.”

Trump has not produced such a list. Why is this list necessary? His personal financial disclosure report offers an incomplete view of his finances. Filed in May, the form lists 16 loans that are valued in vague ranges that make it impossible to determine the total amount he owes. And it does not cover some of the loans mentioned above—such as the Bank of China debt—that are held by companies in which he is deeply invested.

Also, Trump’s most recent financial disclosure is out of date. For instance, Trump reported in May that he owed UBS Real Estate, a subsidiary of the Swiss banking giant, between $5 million and $25 million in connection with a loan for commercial property at New York City’s Trump International Hotel and Tower. Yet public records show that this $7 million loan was paid off with a new $7 million loan from a smaller lender called Ladder Capital Finance. According to public documents, Trump currently owes Ladder Capital at least $275 million. Ladder Capital specializes in packaging loans into larger portfolios that are eventually sold off to other lenders. So where might Trump’s Ladder loans end up? It would be important to know his ultimate creditors. His financial disclosure form also lists a puzzling loan of more than $50 million that comes from one of his own entities. There has been no public explanation of this act of financial acrobatics and what it means for his complete debt picture and financial stability.

* Trump University: There are three pending cases alleging fraud on the part of Trump’s for-profit school. One, in San Diego, is scheduled to begin trial on November 28. New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman accused Trump University of “repeatedly” deceiving “students into thinking that they were attending a legally chartered ‘university.'” Schneiderman’s lawsuit maintains that students were misled about the instructors. A former salesman for Trump University provided an affidavit in which he testified that “while Trump University claimed it wanted to help consumers make money in real estate, in fact Trump University was only interested in selling every person the most expensive seminars they possibly could.” The affidavit notes, “Based upon my personal experience and employment, I believe that Trump University was a fraudulent scheme, and that it preyed upon the elderly and uneducated to separate them from their money.” In June, The New Yorker asked, “Will one of the world’s leading democracies elect as its President a businessman who founded and operated a for-profit learning annex that some of its own employees regarded as a giant ripoff, and that the highest legal officer in New York State has described as a classic bait-and-switch scheme?” The election will occur before questions about Trump University are resolved.

* His lawsuits: Throughout the campaign, Trump has frequently threatened to sue the media and others (including the women who have accused him of sexual assault). But, as USA Today reported, Trump is already engaged in dozens of lawsuits beyond the Trump University cases that remain open. As the paper noted, “Trump faces significant open litigation tied to his businesses: angry members at his Jupiter, Fla. golf course say they were cheated out of refunds on their dues and a former employee at the same club claims she was fired after reporting sexual harassment…Trump is also defending lawsuits tied to his campaign. A disgruntled GOP political consultant sued for $4 million saying Trump defamed her. Another suit, a class action, says the campaign violated consumer protection laws by sending unsolicited text messages. If elected, the open lawsuits will tag along with Trump. He would not be entitled to immunity, and could be required to give depositions or even testify in open court. That could chew up time and expose a litany of uncomfortable private and business dealings to the public.”

The paper pointed out that at least 60 lawsuits and hundreds of liens and judgments have “documented cases where people accused Trump and his businesses of failing to pay them what they were owed for their work.” Many of these have not received full press coverage during the campaign. USA Today also reported: “In at least 20 separate lawsuits, plaintiffs accused Trump and managers at his companies of discriminating against women, ignoring sexual harassment complaints and even participating in the harassment themselves. Women in those disputes have testified they were fired for complaining.”

* His net worth and income: Trump has claimed he’s worth $10 billion. With the records publicly available, this is impossible to confirm. A net worth calculation is meaningless if it does not take debts into account, and his total indebtedness cannot be determined on the basis of public documents. And Trump has a history of inflating his net worth. A decade ago, he sued a reporter who quoted experts saying Trump was worth only $200 million to $300 million, not the $2 billion to $5 billion Trump claimed at the time. (Trump lost.) At the first presidential debate, Trump insisted his 2015 income was $694 million, but a Mother Jones investigation found that Trump had greatly exaggerated his income from golf courses, calling into question that whopping amount. The New York Times recently reported that an examination of property tax appeals and other financial records showed that Trump likely overstated his income: “After expenses, some of his businesses make a small fraction of what he reported on his disclosure forms, or actually lose money. In fact, it is virtually impossible to determine from the forms just how much he is earning in any year.” Ultimately, it may not matter whether Trump has all the wealth and income he insists he possesses—but his truthfulness is at stake with his net worth and income claims.

There is a large amount of information that Trump has not released during the campaign, even after vowing to do so. It’s not just his tax returns. He promised to release evidence that he was under audit by the IRS (the supposed reason he has not released his tax returns). But he put out only a letter from his own lawyer. He said that his wife, Melania—whose past immigration status was questioned in media reports that suggested she might have once worked illegally as a model in the United States—would hold a press conference to set the matter straight. She did not; instead, a Trump lawyer issued a letter without any corroborating documentation. Trump pledged to release “full reports” regarding his health. Those never came.

Other than the tax returns, perhaps the most important information Trump has not produced is how he would separate himself from his businesses, were he to win the White House. His entanglements—which likely include publicly unknown partnerships, investors, and creditors—are extensive and complex. Trump has produced no plan for how he could run the government and be free of all the conflicts of interest posed by his business interests. He is the least transparent presidential candidate in modern times.

Sixteen months of campaign reporting has not revealed all the nooks and crannies of a business empire that is purposefully structured to be impervious to scrutiny. It would have taken a team of forensic accountants to develop a clear picture of Trump’s finances. He did not help by withholding his tax returns and fudging parts of his financial disclosure form. And that was the point. Trump, who is aiming to be perhaps the most powerful man in the world, wanted to keep much of his life secret before Americans voted. He succeeded in doing so.

From: 

What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump

Posted in alo, Annies, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Ultima, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What We Still Don’t Know About Donald Trump

Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials

Mother Jones

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC “-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN” “http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/loose.dtd”>

Harvard’s Institute of Politics has just released its latest poll of 18-29 year olds, and reports that Hillary Clinton has a “massive” lead over Donald Trump. Over at the New York Times, however, Yamiche Alcindor says the new poll shows that Clinton has “struggled” with millennials and “will have to convince many young people that they should trust her to grapple with some of the nation’s biggest issues.” Nancy LeTourneau is annoyed:

That is the power of narrative. Once you buy into the idea that Clinton is having trouble with millennials, it is almost impossible to break out of it. In the back of Alcindor’s mind, she has to do better than a 28 point lead to be successful with young people. Who knows how high that bar is?

I get the exasperation with this, but the problem is that both the IOP and Alcindor are right. Clinton leads Trump 49-21 percent in the IOP poll, which is indeed a massive lead. At the same time, 49 percent support is less than Democrats usually get from 20-somethings. Like it or not, Clinton is less popular with young voters than any Democrat in the past two decades except for Al Gore. Is this because of the Bernie effect? Because of Clinton herself? Because third-party candidates are getting more attention than usual? That’s hard to say. But whatever the reason, Clinton is underperforming with millennials.

Now, at this point her underperformance is fairly modest compared to anyone other than Barack Obama. And she still has a couple of weeks to make up ground. It’s fair to say that she’s a little behind the usual pace for Democrats, but it’s not fair to regurgitate the narrative from two or three months ago when she was struggling pretty hard with millennial disaffection. It may not make for a great story, but sometimes the truth is a little bit boring.

Originally posted here:  

Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Hillary Clinton Is Slowly Picking Up Ground With Millennials

The Invention of Nature – Andrea Wulf

READ GREEN WITH E-BOOKS

The Invention of Nature

Alexander von Humboldt’s New World

Andrea Wulf

Genre: Nature

Price: $12.99

Publish Date: September 15, 2015

Publisher: Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group

Seller: Penguin Random House LLC


The acclaimed author of Founding Gardeners reveals the forgotten life of Alexander von Humboldt, the visionary German naturalist whose ideas changed the way we see the natural world—and in the process created modern environmentalism. NATIONAL BEST SELLER One of the&#xa0; New York Times 10&#xa0;Best Books of the Year Winner of the Los Angeles Times Book Prize, The&#xa0;James Wright Award for Nature Writing, the&#xa0; Costa Biography Award, the Royal Geographic Society's Ness Award, the Sigurd F. Olson Nature Writing Award Finalist for the Andrew Carnegie Medal for Excellence in Nonfiction, the &#xa0;Kirkus &#xa0;Prize Prize for Nonfiction, the&#xa0;Independent Bookshop Week Book Award A &#xa0; Best Book of the Year: The New York Times,&#xa0;The Atlantic,&#xa0;The Economist ,&#xa0; Nature ,&#xa0; Jezebel ,&#xa0; Kirkus Reviews ,&#xa0; Publishers Weekly ,&#xa0; New Scientist ,&#xa0; The Independent ,&#xa0; The Telegraph ,&#xa0; The Sunday Times,&#xa0;The Evening Standard, The Spectator Alexander von Humboldt (1769–1859) was an intrepid explorer and the most famous scientist of his age. In North America, his name still graces four counties, thirteen towns, a river, parks, bays, lakes, and mountains. His restless life was packed with adventure and discovery, whether he was climbing the highest volcanoes in the world or racing through anthrax-infected Siberia or translating his research into bestselling publications that changed science and thinking. Among Humboldt’s most revolutionary ideas was a radical vision of nature, that it is a complex and interconnected global force that does not exist for the use of humankind alone. Now Andrea Wulf brings the man and his achievements back into focus: his daring expeditions and investigation of wild environments around the world and his discoveries of similarities between climate and vegetation zones on different continents. She also discusses his prediction of human-induced climate change, his remarkable ability to fashion poetic narrative out of scientific observation, and his relationships with iconic figures such as Simón Bolívar and Thomas Jefferson. Wulf examines how Humboldt’s writings inspired other naturalists and poets such as Darwin, Wordsworth, and Goethe, and she makes the compelling case that it was Humboldt’s influence that led John Muir to his ideas of natural preservation and that shaped Thoreau’s Walden . With this brilliantly researched and compellingly written book, Andrea Wulf shows the myriad fundamental ways in which Humboldt created our understanding of the natural world, and she champions a renewed interest in this vital and lost player in environmental history and science. From the Hardcover edition.

Jump to original:

The Invention of Nature – Andrea Wulf

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, GE, Knopf, LAI, ONA, PUR, The Atlantic, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The Invention of Nature – Andrea Wulf