Tag Archives: top stories

Why Is Obama’s Department of Labor Bringing On a Top McDonald’s PR Person?

Mother Jones

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

Labor Secretary Tom Perez has taken a lead role in President Barack Obama’s push to increase the federal minimum wage. The fast food industry is one of the nation’s largest employers of low- and minimum-wage workers. So why has the labor secretary brought on a top McDonald’s PR person as a senior adviser?

Ofelia Casillas worked as a national media relations manager for McDonald’s until she was hired as Perez’ director of public outreach. At McDonald’s, Casillas was in charge of overseeing “media crises” for the company. That would include the wave of fast-food strikes designed to draw attention to poverty wages. McDonald’s average wage is $7.81 an hour.

During a national strike in August, in which workers were demanding that fast-food joints pay a $15 minimum wage, Casillas told Bloomberg that the strikers were not “providing an accurate picture of what it means to work at McDonald’s.”

At the Department of Labor, Casillas will be meeting with business and community groups about the secretary’s policy priorities, one of which is raising the minimum wage. That means she will inevitably be dealing with companies like McDonald’s as well as the striking fast-food workers, says Craig Holman, a government ethics expert at the consumer watchdog Public Citizen. Her previous work for McDonald’s could color how she presents their concerns to Perez, he argues, which means there is “clearly an appearance of a conflict of interest.”

(The White House did not respond to a request for comment. The SEIU, which has helped organize the national movement of fast-food strikes, and the AFL-CIO, which is active in the minimum wage fight, declined to comment, as did Berlin Rosen, a public relations firm promoting the SEIU’s Fast Food Forward Campaign.)

Carl Fillichio, senior communications adviser at the DoL, says the hire does not represent a contradiction. “The Secretary is committed to raising the minimum wage and so is the Obama administration,” he says. Fillichio notes that prior to her job at McDonald’s, Casillas was a regional press secretary for the Obama campaign, and before that she worked at the American Civil Liberties Union. At the DoL, she does not influence policy, he adds, but merely serves as a liaison between the labor secretary and outside groups.

Critics are not convinced. “If she’s a gatekeeper for who the DoL is meeting with, that’s a problem,” says a top organizer in the minimum-wage fight who did not want to be identified. He adds that McDonald’s officials clearly don’t have an “understanding of where workers are… The hire certainly sends a troubling message.”

View post: 

Why Is Obama’s Department of Labor Bringing On a Top McDonald’s PR Person?

Posted in Citizen, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Why Is Obama’s Department of Labor Bringing On a Top McDonald’s PR Person?

How "Pawn Stars" Got Involved in Bob Dylan’s Amazing Interactive Music Video

Mother Jones

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

You’ve probably seen the video by now. (Even if you have, watch it again, above.) It’s the year’s most innovative music video—and it was made for Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone,” which was released 48 years ago. Vania Heymann, the music video’s 27-year-old Israeli director, created sixteen different “channels,” including a CNBC-type news channel, a movie channel, and a sports broadcast. On each one, the celebrities, actors, and hosts go about their daily business—but while lip-syncing to the lyrics of Dylan’s landmark composition. It’s an awesome interactive experience, and my description doesn’t really do it justice. (Like I said, watch it, flip through it.)

The music video, which was posted earlier this week, coincides with the release of The Complete Album Collection Vol. One, Dylan’s 47-CD box set. The video includes TV channels featuring comedian Marc Maron, The Price Is Right host and ReasonTV darling Drew Carey, rapper Danny Brown, and History‘s Pawn Stars cast members Austin “Chumlee” Russell and Rick Harrison.

“The lyrics including ‘pawn’ was a happy coincidence from our end,” Joel Patterson, a Pawn Stars producer, told me. “The fact that Bob Dylan had appeared on Pawn Stars in the past made it an easy ‘yes.'” The video took just “a few hours” to shoot, he adds: “Rick and Chumlee both knew the song pretty well already.”

According to Patterson, Russell and Harrison are huge Dylan fans; in the aforementioned Pawn Stars episode, Russell has a signed copy of Dylan’s critically maligned album Self Portrait. As for Dylan, Patterson says, his manager “communicated a while back that…he likes the show. He also told us Dylan was extremely pleased with his appearance on Pawn Stars.”

See the article here:

How "Pawn Stars" Got Involved in Bob Dylan’s Amazing Interactive Music Video

Posted in FF, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How "Pawn Stars" Got Involved in Bob Dylan’s Amazing Interactive Music Video

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Mother Jones

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

Sugar kills. The delicious white crack has been linked to obesity, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and Alzheimer’s. So what’s a person with a sweet tooth to do? Artificial sweeteners are a tempting choice, since they don’t have calories or rot your teeth, and they’re recommended for people with diabetes. But some of the fake stuff comes with its own potential health risks: Links to cancer in animal studies, reported side effects of dizziness and headaches, and exacerbated stomach problems, to name a few. And in one case, an artificial sweetener that the FDA had proposed banning was kept on the shelves after an aggressive advertising campaign from the pro-sweetener lobbying industry. Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, tells Mother Jones that, “We always encourage people to make informed choices by reviewing the credible research available.” So without further ado, here’s everything you need to know about the safety of your favorite fake sugar.

1. Stevia (Brand names: Truvia, PureVia)

Truvia.com

What is it? Stevia is short for Stevia Rebaudiana, a plant from the Chrysanthemum family that grows in parts of Brazil and Paraguay. The compound that makes the Stevia sugar is extracted from the leaves. It’s used in the EU, East Asia, Russia, Mexico, Israel, and many South American countries, and is about 200 to 300 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? In the 1990s, the FDA rejected Stevia as a food ingredient after research linked it to reproductive problems and possible genetic mutations in rats. In 2008, the FDA approved a specific formula of pure Stevia—Rebaudioside A. PureVia and Truvia both contain the Reb A version of Stevia, which is FDA-approved. The FDA recommended daily dosage is no more than 1.3 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, for healthy adults. You’d need to have at least 29 Truvia packets a day to exceed that.

What do the experts say? If your Stevia isn’t made from Reb A—like, for example, the whole-leaf extract version that’s sold at natural food markets and labeled as a “dietary supplement”—it hasn’t been vetted for safety by the FDA. For Truvia and PureVia, the FDA concluded with “reasonable certainty that Reb A is not harmful under its intended conditions of use” based on studies it looked at concerning reproductive, blood pressure, and toxicity effects. Although scientific studies in the 1960s and 1980s found that Stevia-derived products decreased fertility in female rats and potentially led to mutations, the FDA concluded that those problems didn’t apply to Reb A, based on additional research. (The World Health Organization has also determined that Reb A has no cancer link.) The FDA did note that one form of Stevia was deadly to rats at a dose of 15,000 milligrams per kilogram of body weight, but that’s an enormous amount of Stevia. Atalanta Rafferty, a spokesperson for Truvia, says that “A panel of independent experts reviewed a dossier of all available toxicity and safety information relevant to Truvia stevia leaf extract, and concluded that Truvia stevia leaf extract is safe.” Pura Via says on its website that, “An extensive library of more than 85 studies exists for Reb A and other components of the stevia plant which supports Reb A’s use in tabletop sweeteners.”

2. Aspartame (Brand Names: Equal, NutraSweet)

Soap.com

What is it? Aspartame is made up of two amino acids, aspartic acid and phenylalanine, and methanol, all of which are found in common foods. It’s about 200 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? It was approved in the United States for limited use in 1974. But if you’re taking more than 50 milligrams per kilogram of body weight a day, you’re exceeding the FDA’s recommended daily limit. (A 165-pound person would have to be drinking more than 20 cans of diet coke to exceed that.)

What do the experts say? Aspartame has been controversial for decades. In 1987, the Government Accountability Office investigated the FDA after the sweetener was approved. It determined that the “FDA adequately followed its food additive approval process,” but noted that 12 of the 69 scientists interviewed by GAO expressed “major concerns” about aspartame’s safety.

In 2006, cancer researchers in Bologna, Italy, released the results of a $1 million, seven-year study of the use of aspartame in rats. The team found that, at a dosage equivalent to a 150-pound person drinking at least four 20-oz bottles of diet soda daily, the sweetener caused cancer in the animals. But the FDA shot down the study, noting that the researchers wouldn’t give them all of their information, and found major shortcomings in the data that was available. According to the FDA, five other cancer studies found that the sweetener was safe. The American Cancer Society says on its website, “Aside from the possible effects in people with phenylketonuria a rare genetic disorder, there are no health problems that have been consistently linked to aspartame useâ&#128;&#139;” but adds that “research continues.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest recommends that Americans avoid it on the basis that the independent studies have found that consumption of aspartame causes cancer in rodents (although again, not in humans), and it’s been anecdotally linked to other health issues. In a 2002 FDA report, reported aspartame side effects included nausea, heart palpitations, headaches and depression, among other things. NutraSweet and Equal both say that its products are very safe. “Aspartame offers one simple step in helping people move closer to achieving a more healthful diet,” notes NutraSweet’s website.

3. Sucralose (Brand Name: Splenda)

Splenda

What is it? Sucralose is a chemical that’s produced by chemically reacting sugar with chlorine. It’s about 600 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? Sucralose was approved in 1998. The FDA recommended daily dose is 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight.

What do the experts say? There have been more than 110 studies on sucralose over a 20 year period, and the American Cancer Society says the studies have shown “no evidence that these sweeteners cause cancer or pose any other threat to human health.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest says that “sucralose is safer than aspartame, saccharin, acesulfame-K, and cyclamate,” but notes that people with inflammatory bowel disease and other gastrointestinal issues should try avoiding the substance, since it’s been known to aggravate symptoms (Peggy Ballman, a spokesperson for Splenda, says that this finding “is not consistent with the extensive data base on sucralose and its more than 20 years of safe use.”) In 2008, Duke University researchers also found that Splenda can harm intestinal bacteria, although that study was funded by a pro-sugar lobbying group, and Ballman says that “no regulatory agency has acted on the results from that study.” In 2012, the same controversial research team in Italy that busted aspartame announced that sucralose increases cancer in rats, but the results of the study have not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal. “In contrast, more than 110 studies have proven the safety of Sucralose. Worldwide authorities, including the US Food and Drug Administration, the European Food Safety Authority, Health Canada, and the World Health Organization, have reviewed these studies and confirm that results show no link between sucralose and any form of cancer,” says Ballman.

4. Saccharin (Brand names: Sweet’N Low)

Amazon

What is it? Saccharin is made from benzoic sulfilimine, a chemical compound that was accidentally discovered in 1879 when a professor, Constantin Fahlberg, was analyzing coal tar at John Hopkins University. He spilled saccharin on his hands and later noticed that the bread he was eating at dinner tasted sweeter, according to Elmhurst College. Saccharin is 200 to 700 times sweeter than sugar.

When did the FDA approve it? Saccharin has been around since before the FDA governed food additives, but the FDA has put the acceptable daily limit at 5 milligrams per kilogram of body weight. A 150 pound person could consume 340 milligrams of saccharin per day, which is equal to more than 48 12-ounce servings of Diet Wild Cherry Fanta.

What do experts say? In the 1970s, tests showed that high doses of saccharin caused bladder stones in rats, which could lead to bladder cancer, particularly in male rats. Studies after that found similar results. Initially, the FDA proposed banning the substance—but on Congress’ recommendation in November 1977, the FDA kept it on shelves, with warning labels that the sweetener was found to be a carcinogen. According to Christopher Foreman, Jr.â&#128;&#139;, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, a number of congress members fought against actually banning the substance, pushed along by the Calorie Control Council, a sugar substitute and diet-food lobbying group, which “launched an advertising campaign ridiculing both the FDA and the studies on which it based its decision.” In 1991, the FDA finally stopped proposing to ban the sweetener, and in 1996, the warning labels were done away with. In 2000, the US National Toxicology Program’s Report on Carcinogens finally removed saccharin from its list. According to the National Cancer Institute, “the bladder tumors seen in rats are due to a mechanism not relevant to humans and there is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans.” Stephanie Meyering, a spokesperson for Sweet’N Low, says, “Saccharin is the one of the most thoroughly tested food ingredients in the world and it has the longest safe human consumption record among non-nutritive sweeteners.” The Center for Science in the Public Interest isn’t convinced and puts it on its list of substances to “avoid.”

View post – 

Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, oven, PUR, Safer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Will Fake Sugars Kill You?

The GOP’s Filibuster Freakout: 13 Dramatic Reactions From Senate Republicans

Mother Jones

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

Senate Democrats upended the chamber’s normal procedure Thursday morning, restoring a sense of normalcy to the oft-dysfunctional institution by changing the filibuster rules for confirming judicial and executive-branch nominees. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) turned to the so-called “nuclear option”—a parliamentary trick to write the rules with just 51 votes, rather than the standard two-thirds majority required to change Senate procedures. Clearing a filibuster on those appointees will no longer take a 60-vote supermajority, and President Barack Obama’s judges and White House staff can now be approved by a simple up-or-down vote.

It’s not an outrageous concept. Senate rules were changed regularly under these basic-majority votes when the late Robert Byrd of West Virginia was majority leader in the 1970s. Yet on Thursday, Republicans acted as if the world had ended and democracy would soon collapse thanks to Reid’s egregious change of the rules. It’s hard to take their doom-and-gloom predictions too seriously. Republicans, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, were amped to end filibusters of judicial nominations in 2005 until Democrats caved and cut a deal.

Here’s a sample of the some of the most hyperbolic Republican reactions to filibuster reform:

1. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) on the Senate floor:

“He Harry Reid is not a dictator. He does not have the power to dictate how this Senate operates.”

2. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.):

3. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on CNN:

“What we really need is an anti-bullying ordinance in the Senate. I mean, now we’ve got a big bully. Harry Reid says he’s just gonna break the rules and make new rules.”

4. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.):

“They’re governed by the newer members…who have never been in a minority, who are primarily driving this issue. They succeeded and they will pay a very, very heavy price for it.”

5. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.):

6. Sen. Alexander, again, this time on the floor of the Senate:

“This action today creates a perpetual opportunity for the tyranny of the majority because it permits a majority in this body to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it. This should be called Obamacare II, because it is another example of the use of raw partisan political party for the majority to do whatever it wants to do any time it wants to do it.”

7. Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) on his Facebook page:

“Rather than fix the Obamacare disaster, today Harry Reid doubled down on the brass knuckles partisan power politics that produced it—jam it through, no compromise, unilaterally make up new rules whenever needed. This isn’t just a shame for the Senate; it’s scary and dictatorial for our country.”

8. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.):

9. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) right before the nuclear-option vote:

“Just yesterday, I saw a story about a guy getting a letter in the mail saying his dog, his dog had qualified for insurance under Obamacare. So yeah, I would probably be running for the exit, too, if I had supported this law. I would be looking to change the subject, change the subject just as Senate Democrats have been doing with their threats of going nuclear and changing the Senate rules on nominations.”

10. Sen. Dan Coates (R-Ind.) on his Facebook page:

“This action to change the Senate rules and weaken the Founding Fathers’ vision for checks and balances is yet another disturbing power grab and reminds the public of how the Democrats jammed through the unwanted health care law.”

11. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.):

“The Democrats’ vote to invoke the ‘nuclear option’ and fundamentally change the rules of the Senate is a raw power grab which is deeply disappointing. Like the manner in which they rammed through Obamacare on party line votes, they have now broken the rules of the Senate to allow them to do the same for the president’s executive and judicial nominees.”

12. Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.):

13. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa):

“The silver lining is that there will come a day when roles are reversed. When that happens, our side will likely nominate and confirm lower court and Supreme Court nominees with 51 votes regardless of whether the Democrats actually buy into this fanciful notion that they can demolish the filibuster on lower court nominees and still preserve it for Supreme Court.”

Originally from – 

The GOP’s Filibuster Freakout: 13 Dramatic Reactions From Senate Republicans

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on The GOP’s Filibuster Freakout: 13 Dramatic Reactions From Senate Republicans

Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Mother Jones

This story first appeared on the Guardian website and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration.

The climate crisis of the 21st century has been caused largely by just 90 companies, which between them produced nearly two-thirds of the greenhouse gas emissions generated since the dawning of the industrial age, new research suggests.

The companies range from investor-owned firms—household names such as Chevron, Exxon, and BP—to state-owned and government-run firms.

The analysis, which was welcomed by the former Vice President Al Gore as a “crucial step forward” found that the vast majority of the firms were in the business of producing oil, gas, or coal, found the analysis, which has been accepted for publication in the journal Climactic Change.

“There are thousands of oil, gas, and coal producers in the world,” climate researcher and author Richard Heede at the Climate Accountability Institute in Colorado said. “But the decision makers, the CEOs, or the ministers of coal and oil if you narrow it down to just one person, they could all fit on a Greyhound bus or two.”

Click here to explore the Guardian‘s interactive roster of the companies behind climate change. via The Guardian

Half of the estimated emissions were produced just in the past 25 years—well past the date when governments and corporations became aware that rising greenhouse gas emissions from the burning of coal and oil were causing dangerous climate change.

Many of the same companies are also sitting on substantial reserves of fossil fuel, which—if they are burned—put the world at even greater risk of dangerous climate change.

Climate change experts said the data set was the most ambitious effort so far to hold individual carbon producers, rather than governments, to account.

Continue Reading »

View article: 

Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Oster, Ringer, Springer, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Just 90 Companies Caused Two-Thirds of Man-Made Global Warming Emissions

Meet the Computer Geek Who Took on Ken Cuccinelli—and Won

Mother Jones

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

For climate researcher Michael Mann, the last few weeks have hardly been average ones in the life of a scientist and university professor.

On October 30, Mann introduced Bill Clinton at a campaign rally for Terry McAuliffe in Charlottesville, Virginia. A few days later, he listened as President Obama, also campaigning for McAuliffe in Virginia, brought up Mann’s high-profile struggles with McAuliffe’s gubernatorial opponent, Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli.

Not exactly average—but then, as MSNBC’s Chris Hayes put it when interviewing Mann back in August, “You didn’t come to politics, politics came to you.” The story of how Mann, a self-described math and computer nerd working in an esoteric field known as paleoclimatology, wound up front and center in a nationally watched political campaign is told on the latest episode of the Inquiring Minds podcast:

As Mann explains on the show, “The last thing I ever wanted to do was to get involved in politics, to me that was anathema.” But “because of the situation I found myself in,” Mann continues, “I ultimately did grow to embrace the role that I can have in informing this debate that we’re having about potentially the most significant challenge that human civilization has faced.”

The “hockey stick” as depicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2001. IPCC Third Assessment Report

Mann’s situation traces back to the world famous “hockey stick” graph, originally published by Mann and his colleagues in a 1998 scientific paper, and then prominently displayed by the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 Third Assessment Report. Because of its stark depiction of just how dramatically humans have altered the climate in a relatively short time period, the figure may well be the most controversial chart in history. Not scientifically controversial, mind you: politically controversial.

“This curve became an icon in the climate change debate because it told a simple story,” says Mann of the hockey stick. “You didn’t need to understand a lot of physics and math to see what that curve was telling you: That there were unprecedented changes taking place in our climate today, and by inference, they probably have something to do with us.”

Columbia University Press

The saga of politicized attacks on the hockey stick is captured in Mann’s book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches From the Front Lines, which is just out in paperback. Suffice it to say that it’s a long and sometimes enraging tale of congressional hearings, prying data requests, dubious scientific critiques, and personal attacks that stretches back to the early 2000s, and forward through the 2009 “Climategate” controversy and all the way up to the recently concluded Cuccinelli battle. Mann had to update the paperback edition of his book extensively just to capture the latest twists and turns.

Climategate, for example, centered in part on a leaked email that referred to “Mike’s Nature trick…to hide the decline.” This was erroneously taken to mean that Mann had been involved in trying to falsely show that temperatures are rising. (If you want to know what was really being discussed in this infamous email, read here.)

Multiple investigations have cleared Mann and the other scientists involved in Climategate. In 2010, however, Cuccinelli issued a “Civil Investigative Demand” to the University of Virginia, where Mann used to work, seeking Mann’s emails and other documents related to a number of his research grants. The demand cited the “hide the decline” email as well as other leaked emails from Climategate. The university resisted and, in a case that drew dramatic media attention and widespread denunciations of Cuccinelli’s “witch hunt,” was ultimately victorious at the Virginia Supreme Court.

Emerging from this broad story, in retrospect, are at least two large ironies:

(1) There are lots of hockey stick studies, not just Mann’s. So even as the issue was personalized and made all about Mann’s research and its validity, other scientists just kept on producing hockey sticks. Mann likes to joke that there is now a veritable “hockey team.” For other hockey stick studies see here and here.

(2) By attacking Mann in such a prominent way, climate skeptics have made him vastly more influential, politically and otherwise, than he might otherwise have been. For instance, Mann was just named one of the “50 Most Influential” people by Bloomberg Markets. Cuccinelli’s demands of the University of Virginia gave Mann a new stature that, in turn, empowered Mann to directly campaign against him.

To see how prominent Mann and his story ultimately became in the Virginia gubernatorial election, just watch this ad from the McAuliffe campaign:

Granted, the climate issue, and the issue of Cuccinelli’s pursuit of Mann’s files, did not tip the Virginia gubernatorial race all on their own. Overall, the most powerful electoral strike against Cuccinelli seems to have been his association with the government shutdown brought on by House Republicans. Still, Mann says, “the issue of ideologically driven anti-science, which was symbolized by Ken Cuccinelli, I think that did fit into a larger narrative of a dangerous candidate who was driven by ideology over logic and science, and substance. And I think in the end, that was the difference.”

Mann is well aware of how much of a departure campaigning against a Republican candidate is for a scientist. In the science community, there has long been discomfort with “advocacy” in its many forms, with the overtly political perhaps topping the list of scientific no-nos. Mann counters, though, that he’s no political operative: It’s just that this particular race, and this particular candidate, affected him so directly that he got involved.

“I felt like I had to fight back not just for myself, but to make it clear to other scientists that we do need to defend our science, not just because it’s the right thing to do scientifically, but because the implications are so profound in this case,” he says. How profound? “We are engaged in an unprecedented and uncontrolled experiment with the one planet that we have,” says Mann. Politicians who seek to undermine this reality now have something new to worry about: That scientists, inspired by Mann, may not simply sit by and watch it happen any longer.

To listen to the full interview with Michael Mann, you can stream below:

This episode of Inquiring Minds, a podcast hosted by best-selling author Chris Mooney and neuroscientist and musician Indre Viskontas, also features a discussion of the myth that left-brained people are logical and right brained people are creative, and the legacy of Carl Sagan and its lessons for today’s science wars.

To catch future shows right when they are released, subscribe to Inquiring Minds via iTunes. You can also follow the show on Twitter at @inquiringshow and like us on Facebook.

Original post:  

Meet the Computer Geek Who Took on Ken Cuccinelli—and Won

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Meet the Computer Geek Who Took on Ken Cuccinelli—and Won

These Beautiful "Place-Hacking" Photos Will Give You an Adrenaline Rush

Mother Jones

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

They call themselves “place hackers”—urban adventurers who get a thrill (and bragging rights) from exploring forbidden spaces: old military bases, sewer systems, decommissioned hospitals, power stations—even the odd skyscraper under construction. Just like backpackers, they have an ethical code: no vandalism or theft, take only photographs, leave only footprints. “The idea behind urban exploration is revealing what’s hidden,” explains Bradley Garrett, author of the recent book Explore Everything: Place Hacking the City. “It’s about going into places that are essentially off limits and, because they are off limits, have been relatively forgotten.” The goal is not just to explore, he adds, but to document and share as well. To wit: Check out these 12 amazing photos from Garrett’s book.

Effra Sewer, South London

Saint Sulpice Church, Paris

King’s Reach Tower, London

New Court Building, London

Ritz-Carlton Residences, Chicago

Legacy Tower, Chicago

Temple Court Building, London

Legacy Tower, Chicago

Lost Kingdom Water Park, Riverside, California

GLC Pipe Subways, London

Skyscraper Crane, Aldgate East, London

Original link – 

These Beautiful "Place-Hacking" Photos Will Give You an Adrenaline Rush

Posted in Bragg, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on These Beautiful "Place-Hacking" Photos Will Give You an Adrenaline Rush

George W. Bush Still Plans to Appear at Jews-for-Jesus-like Event Tonight

Mother Jones

Despite an uproar in the Jewish community, former president George W. Bush is still slated to deliver the keynote address to a fundraiser for the Messianic Jewish Bible Institute in Irving, Texas, tonight. The MJBI trains people to persuade Jews to recognize Jesus as their messiah. Followers of the group believe that if enough Jews are converted, Christ will return to Earth.

After Mother Jones broke the news about Bush’s appearance last week, “a small shitstorm…kicked up over the President’s decision,” writes Rob Eshman, editor of the Jewish Journal of Greater Los Angeles.

“I have yet to meet a Jewish person who hasn’t heard about this,” Tevi Troy, Bush’s White House liaison to the Jewish community from 2003 to 2004, told CNN Wednesday. Troy had high praise for Bush’s support of Israel and the Jewish community, but, he added, “I would be lying if I said I wasn’t disappointed.” A spokesman for the Republican Jewish Coalition did not respond to a request for comment.

The Jewish Federation of Greater Dallas, the Jewish Community Relations Council, and the Rabbinic Association of Greater Dallas issued a statement Tuesday expressing their disappointment regarding Bush’s scheduled appearance: “Support of this group is a direct affront to the mutual respect that all mainstream religious groups afford each other to practice the principles of their respective beliefs.”

Bush’s decision to raise money for MJBI “is really painful to so many in the Jewish community,” Rabbi David Saperstein, director of the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, said on MSNBC, because MJBI’s “primary purpose is to convert all Jews to a different religion. How do you have a respectful relationship if the measure of success of one group is the ending of the other group by having them convert away from their own religion?”

Saperstein, who has worked with Bush on religious freedom issues, described Bush’s decision as “mystifying.” That’s a sentiment shared by conservatives, including Commentary magazine’s Jonathan Tobin, who writes that Bush, who has largely avoided political controversies since leaving the White House, has “stepped into one with both feet.”

Follow this link: 

George W. Bush Still Plans to Appear at Jews-for-Jesus-like Event Tonight

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on George W. Bush Still Plans to Appear at Jews-for-Jesus-like Event Tonight

Want to Piss Off the White House? Talk About Climate Change

Mother Jones

Politico’s Glenn Thrush has a revealing new piece on the pressures of being in President Obama’s cabinet—a supposedly fun thing most of its members will never do again. There a lot of nuggets in there, but one in particular stood out: the White House’s private outrage at former Secretary of Energy Steve Chu’s impromptu decision to talk about climate change while visiting an island nation uniquely threatened by it. On a trip to Trinidad and Tobago with the president, a staffer persuaded press secretary Robert Gibbs to let Chu answer a few questions:

Gibbs reluctantly assented. Then Chu took the podium to tell the tiny island nation that it might soon, sorry to say, be underwater—which not only insulted the good people of Trinidad and Tobago but also raised the climate issue at a time when the White House wanted the economy, and the economy only, on the front burner. “I think the Caribbean countries face rising oceans, and they face increase in the severity of hurricanes,” Chu said. “This is something that is very, very scary to all of us. … The island states … some of them will disappear.”

Earnest slunk backstage. “OK, we’ll never do that again,” he said as Gibbs glared. A phone rang. It was White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel calling Messina to snarl, “If you don’t kill Chu, I’m going to.”

Emanuel didn’t kill Chu, although that would have made for a more interesting story.

A couple things stand out here. Trinidad and Tobago is seriously threatened by climate change, and given the efforts of similarly situated island nations—the Maldives; Tuvalu—to call attention to the crisis, it’s hardly an insult to use the occasion of a trip to the country to talk about it. (Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago’s capital, is 10 feet above sea level.) But this underscores just how narrow the White House’s thinking was at that time. Does anyone actually remember Steven Chu speaking out about sea-level rises in Trinidad and Tobago? Did it really distract from the president’s economic message? Were there mass protests in the streets of Port of Spain? Did it delay pending legislation or result in any electoral setbacks? The reality is that talking about climate change probably isn’t going to be a catastrophe, no matter how awkward it might seem at the time—but not talking about climate change most definitely will.

Source:

Want to Piss Off the White House? Talk About Climate Change

Posted in Casio, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Want to Piss Off the White House? Talk About Climate Change

How the Atlanta Braves’ Proposed Stadium Deal Could Screw Their New Home

Mother Jones

Update: Cobb County has announced it will be contributing $300 million to the new stadium plan, not $450 million. The post below is being updated to reflect the new figures.

Baseball’s Atlanta Braves are planning to move to suburban Cobb County, Georgia, leaving behind their within-city-limits home of 17 years. “The issue isn’t the Turner Field we play in today, but instead whether or not the venue can remain viable for another 20 to 30 years,” the team wrote on a website explaining the move, essentially conceding that the current stadium is fine—but that it might not be in 30 years.

Although the price has not yet been finalized, reports claim the new stadium will cost $672 million, with $300 million coming from Cobb County (motto: “Low on taxes, big on business“). This is the same Cobb County that faced an $86.4 million school budget shortfall this year, forcing employees to take furloughs. While local officials are hoping a new stadium will eventually pay for itself in local economic impact, such claims are often exaggerated. And a look at some recent stadium boondoggles should be enough to give any municipality—or taxpayer—pause.

Here’s what $300 million in stadium subsidies could mean to folks in Cobb County:

View original post here: 

How the Atlanta Braves’ Proposed Stadium Deal Could Screw Their New Home

Posted in FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on How the Atlanta Braves’ Proposed Stadium Deal Could Screw Their New Home