Tag Archives: world

Update: What Do Critics Mean Who Say Obamacare "Isn’t Liberal Enough"?

by RobinLeflore Posted on April 9, 2014

Mother Jones

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

I periodically drone on about the laziness of polls that ask a simple approve/disapprove question about Obamacare. The problem is that a lot of people say they disapprove because Obamacare isn’t liberal enough. These are folks don’t necessarily disapprove of the concept of national healthcare in general or Obamacare in particular, and shouldn’t really be counted among right-wing opponents of the law.

A couple of weeks ago, a Kaiser poll gave us a slightly deeper glimpse into all this. They asked the disapprovers why they disapproved, and it was clear that some of them had lefty criticisms of the law, not conservative criticisms. But the evidence was still a bit fuzzy.

Today, Mark Blumenthal goes further. In a recent HuffPo poll, about 9 percent of the respondents said they opposed Obamacare because it wasn’t liberal enough. Then, in a follow-up question, they were asked, “In your own words, what do you mean when you say the health care law is not liberal enough?”

The results are on the right. There’s still some ambiguity here, but I’d classify several of the responses as likely left-wing criticisms. Adding up the percentages, I get 6 + 4 + 15 + 4 + 4 + 3 = 36 percent. That’s a little less than half of those who had a response.

So, very roughly speaking, in future polls I’d guess that about half of the “not liberal enough” folks are basically supporters of Obamacare but want the law to go further. It might even be more than that, but it remains hard to parse the motivations behind all of these responses with precision. Is “too complex” a liberal or conservative criticism? How about “lack of choice”? Hard to say.

In any case, this adds some context to the whole debate about Obamacare critics who say it’s “not liberal enough.” It’s also an object lesson against assuming too much ideological coherence from survey respondents. A larger survey with a bigger sample size and a little more structure to the questions would be welcome.

View post – 

Update: What Do Critics Mean Who Say Obamacare "Isn’t Liberal Enough"?

Posted in FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Update: What Do Critics Mean Who Say Obamacare "Isn’t Liberal Enough"?

George W. Bush Is a Far Better Painter Than He Was a President. Here’s His Portrait of Vladimir Putin.

by SuzannaMoloney Posted on April 4, 2014

Mother Jones

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

On Friday, NBC aired an interview with former president and aspiring painter George W. Bush. The president—talking to his daughter Jenna Bush Hager on Today—unveiled 24 portraits of world leaders.

It was only a little over a year ago that we learned of Bush’s second act painting passion. Some people hate the paintings. Some people love them. Some people don’t spend that much time thinking about them. Still others can’t consider them without remembering that, you know, he was an awful president. I, for one, consider George W. Bush’s public painting career to be endearing. He’s not the best painter in the whole wide world, but he’s not the worst. There’s some skill on display, which is more than could be said for much of his presidency. Do I want to hang them in my house and look at them everyday? Of course not. But I’ve seen worse paintings. More than that, I’ve seen worse paintings painted by actual professional painters. I’m no expert, but Bush’s Putin looks pretty not-the-worst-thing-in-the-world to me.

NBC

The Tony Blair painting on the other hand is a little splotchy, but nobody can be perfect all the time.

NBC

4,486 American servicemen and women, and more than 100,00 Iraqis lost their lives as a consequence of the war in Iraq. Here is a clip of the president who led us into that war talking about his painting career with his daughter on NBC.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Originally posted here: 

George W. Bush Is a Far Better Painter Than He Was a President. Here’s His Portrait of Vladimir Putin.

Posted in alo, Anchor, Citizen, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on George W. Bush Is a Far Better Painter Than He Was a President. Here’s His Portrait of Vladimir Putin.

In Memoriam: Jonathan Schell

by AlvaI55fsc Posted on March 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

This story first appeared on the TomDispatch website.

“Up to a few months ago, Ben Suc was a prosperous village of some thirty-five hundred people.” That is the initial line of The Village of Ben Suc, his first book, a copy of which I recently reread on a plane trip, knowing that he was soon to die. That book, that specific copy, had a history of its own. It was a Knopf first edition, published in 1967 in the midst of the Vietnam War, after the then-shocking text had appeared in the New Yorker magazine. An on-the-spot account of an American operation, the largest of the Vietnam War to that moment, it followed American troops as they helicoptered into a village controlled by the enemy about 30 miles from the capital, Saigon. All its inhabitants, other than those killed in the process, were removed from their homes and sent to a makeshift refugee camp elsewhere. The US military then set Ben Suc afire, brought in bulldozers to reduce it to rubble, and finally called in the US Air Force to bomb that rubble to smithereens—as though, as the final line of his book put it, “having once decided to destroy it, we were now bent on annihilating every possible indication that the village of Ben Suc had ever existed.”

I had read the piece in the New Yorker when that magazine devoted a single issue to it, something it had not done since it published John Hersey’s Hiroshima in a similar fashion in 1946. I never forgot it. I was then 23 years old and just launched on a life as an anti-Vietnam War activist. I would not meet the author, 24-year-old neophyte reporter Jonathan Schell, for years.

To look at that first edition some 47 years later is to be reminded of just how young he was then, so young that Knopf thought it appropriate in his nearly nonexistent bio to mention where he went to high school (“the Putney School in Vermont”). The book was tiny. Only 132 pages with an all-print orange cover that, in addition to the author and title, said: “The story of the American destruction of a Vietnamese village—this is the complete text of the brilliant report to which the New Yorker devoted almost an entire issue.” That was bold advertising in those publishing days. I know. As an editor at a publishing house as the 1980s began, I can still remember having a fierce argument about whether or not it was “tasteless” to put a blurb from a prominent person on a book’s cover.

Continue Reading »

Excerpt from: 

In Memoriam: Jonathan Schell

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Knopf, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on In Memoriam: Jonathan Schell

What’s Wrong With the Fed?

by DaneLabynm Posted on March 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

That’s the question Ryan Avent asks today. The reason is simple: In 2012, the Fed announced an inflation target of 2 percent per year, as measured by the PCE index. But they haven’t come close to hitting it. Why not?

The chart on the right shows the most recent inflation data. In 2011, PCE inflation measured 2.4 percent. In 2012, it came in at 1.8 percent. That’s a little low—especially during a supposed economic recovery—but it’s easy to see why no one was alarmed. It’s something to keep an eye on, but no one ever said the Fed could fine tune inflation to a few tenths of a point.

But then came 2013. There was a fair amount of monthly variability in the data, but the year-end number clocked in at 1.1 percent. That’s way too low, especially considering that (a) the previous year had come in below target, (b) inflationary expectations were still well anchored, and (c) the labor market was still noticeably loose. What this means is that the Fed has failed to meet its employment mandate for six full years and is now failing to meet its inflation target too. Avent wants to know what’s going on:

This is an extraordinary period of time during which the Fed has failed to meet even the rather lax definition of the mandate it has set for itself by a rather substantial margin. How can we explain this? Some possibilities are:

1) The Fed is technically unable to meet its mandate.

2) The Fed is staffed by incompetents.

3) The Fed is actually pursuing a goal outside its mandate without explaining what that goal is and what the justification is for pursuing it.

4) America’s statistics are all wrong. The Fed knows this but has refused to tell anyone else.

Whichever of the above you favour as an explanation, it suggests a need for meaningful reform, either to the personnel at the Fed or to the distribution of macroeconomic responsibilities across government.

My own guess is a little bit of #1 and a lot of #3. I suspect the Fed really is having technical trouble meeting its goals—at least, in a way it’s comfortable with. But that’s just a guess.

It’s less of a guess that the Fed is pursuing goals outside its mandate. It’s hardly a secret that there are plenty of Fed governors who are still living in the 70s, petrified of inflationary spirals and determined to keep inflation as low as possible. Not 2 percent. As low as possible. What’s more, they consider full employment not a virtue, but a threat. It leads to higher inflation, after all.

I think 2014 is something of a watershed year for the Fed. The hawks can argue that a single year of 1 percent inflation is nothing to worry too much about. This stuff bounces around. But at the very least, they should be on board with getting the inflation rate back up to their stated goal. Given the current employment level and the state of the global economy, this poses little risk. If they aren’t willing to do it, they need to come clean that they don’t really care about their statutory mandates and are simply substituting their own timeworn fears and class loyalties for the expressed will of Congress.

Credit:

What’s Wrong With the Fed?

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, PUR, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on What’s Wrong With the Fed?

It’s Time to Start Quoting Our Public Figures Accurately

by ChelseyUyc Posted on March 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Jesse Sheidlower makes a point near and dear to my heart today: it’s time to get rid of the dashes. You know the ones: f—, n—–, s—, etc. This is not a plea for reporters to write like Hunter S. Thompson, it’s a plea to fully report the obscenities uttered by famous people that our news organizations are too delicate to report:

There have been numerous cases in recent years when the use of offensive language has been the news story itself. In 1998, Representative Dan Burton referred to President Clinton with an offensive word. In 2000, a microphone picked up George W. Bush using a vulgar term to describe the New York Times reporter Adam Clymer. In 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney insulted Senator Pat Leahy on the Senate floor with yet another vulgarity. In 2007, Isaiah Washington was kicked off the television show “Grey’s Anatomy” for referring to his fellow actor T. R. Knight with a gay slur. This January, Representative Michael Grimm threatened an aggressive reporter, using an obscenity.

These stories were covered widely, but in most cases, the details were obscured. The relevant words were described variously as “an obscenity,” “a vulgarity,” “an antigay epithet”; replaced with rhyming substitutions; printed with some letters omitted; and, most absurdly, in The Washington Times (whose editor confessed this was “an attempt at a little humor”), alluded to as “a vulgar euphemism for a rectal aperture.” We learn from these stories that something important happened, but that it can’t actually be reported.

When a public figure uses an obscenity, it’s news. Readers deserve to know exactly what was said. Consider my favorite obscene quote of all time, courtesy of Richard Mottram, a British civil servant:

We’re all fucked. I’m fucked. You’re fucked. The whole department is fucked. It’s the biggest cock-up ever. We’re all completely fucked.

You just don’t get the flavor if you don’t spell out the words. And in the US, we often don’t even get the quote with the dashes. As Sheidlower says, we get “a vulgarity” or “a long string of obscenities” or something similar, making us feel like everyone else knows what happened and we’re being deliberately left out. It’s long past time to knock this off. News outlets should print the news, full stop. If an obscenity is part of it, accuracy and integrity are more important than delicate sensibilities.

More here: 

It’s Time to Start Quoting Our Public Figures Accurately

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on It’s Time to Start Quoting Our Public Figures Accurately

Apple Has Patented Clicking on Phone Number to Dial a Phone? Seriously?

by silvermega-1959 Posted on March 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

The New York Times tells us today that Apple’s lawsuit against Samsung is really just a proxy for its war against Google’s Android operating system. That’s not news. But this just makes me want to pound my head against a wall:

In the case set to open this week, Apple’s legal complaint aims at some of the features that Google, not Samsung, put in Android, like the ability to tap on a phone number inside a text message to dial the number. And although Google is not a defendant in this case, some of its executives are expected to testify as witnesses.

I know we all mock some of the things that seem to be patentable these days. I sure do. And who knows? Maybe those things really aren’t quite as obvious as we all think they are. But tapping a phone number on a phone in order to dial it? There is no plausible universe in which several thousand designers wouldn’t think of doing that. Somebody needs to put a leash on Apple before the venomous ghost of Steve Jobs drags them into a rabbit hole of techno-legal vengeance from which they never recover. Enough.

Read this article:  

Apple Has Patented Clicking on Phone Number to Dial a Phone? Seriously?

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Apple Has Patented Clicking on Phone Number to Dial a Phone? Seriously?

A Political History of "How I Met Your Mother"

by Sylvesterax6 Posted on March 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

How I Met Your Mother is not, nor has it ever been, a political show. It’s about Ted Mosby, Marshall Eriksen, Lily Aldrin, Robin Scherbatsky, and Barney Stinson doing funny, touching, and crazy things in New York City. It’s about Ted finally finding The Mother of his future children. It’s about love and the long-haul pursuit of it.

But the CBS sitcom (which concludes its ninth and final season on Monday night) has, over its eight-plus years on the air, snuck in some political and social commentary ever so slyly and gently into the background—and fore. HIMYM had its major ups and downs, as any long-running network series does. Some seasons gave the strong impression that creators Carter Bays and Craig Thomas (and everyone else involved, for that matter) were just phoning it in. But when the show was good, it was really, really good—a cleverly framed and intelligent look at friendship, marriage, and heartbreak.

Here’s a look at how the show was good on environmentalism, gay rights, corporate satire, and so on:

1. Barney’s bank unintentionally started a bloody revolution in a foreign country.

It was a running joke (until recently this season) that none of the main characters knew what Barney (played by Neil Patrick Harris) did for a living. He works at Goliath National Bank (theme song sung by Barney, above), and he makes a lot of money. Barney’s general outlook on life—suits, cash, sex, strippers, sex, saying “bro” a lot, more sex—and his colleagues are clearly a caricature of fratty corporate culture. But the bank also fits in nicely with the heartless-and-evil-corporation trope.

Here’s one of Barney’s bosses (during the show’s fourth season) casually updating staff on the bank’s complicity in bloodshed and political tumult overseas:

And so, while those bribes did destabilize the regime and caused the death of most of the royal family, it did lead to looser banking regulations in Rangoon. So yay us.

“World leaders in credit and banking,” indeed.

2. Marshall fights for environmental justice.

The biggest part of Marshall’s (Jason Segel) persona, besides love of family and devotion to monogamy, is that he’s a lawyer who wants to save the planet. He’s a staunch environmentalist, and wants to bring about change by arguing and winning landmark court cases:

(This season, things got awkward when Marshall shared a long car ride with an oil lobbyist.)

After Marshall starting working at the Natural Resource Defense Council, the NRDC (in real life) blogged about the character and HIMYM:

In last night’s episode of “How I Met Your Mother,” Marshall Eriksen finally quit his corporate law job at the (fake) Goliath National Bank, to volunteer with the (very real) Natural Resources Defense Council. Declaring, “I need to do better things with my life,” Marshall is excited by the opportunity to work with NRDC. “I’d be saving the oceans, saving endangered species,” he says. Or, “saving chicken bones and an old boot to make hobo soup” retorts his friend Barney. Except that, as Marshall noticed in a previous episode, those chicken bones and the old boot are unfortunately floating out to sea and dirtying our oceans.

3. The show is totally down with marriage equality and gay rights.

Well, except for Barney (initially), but only because he was for so long against the very concept of marriage. The show’s writing staff used his earlier opposition to marriage as a way to highlight the absurdity of the religious right’s argument that gay marriage would harm the American family:

4. HIMYM addresses the housing and financial crisis:

Shortly after the commencement of the financial crisis in late 2007, the show aired an episode in which Marshall and Lily (Alyson Hannigan) make the idiotic decision to buy a home they can’t afford. The following is Marshall convincing Lily that 2007 was a good time to buy; the scene is peppered with future Ted (Bob Saget) narrating why Marshall is wrong:

Marshall: We should buy a place!…Baby, real estate is always a good investment.

Future Ted: It’s not.

Marshall: And the market is really hot right now.

Future Ted: It wasn’t.

Marshall: And because of my new job, we are in such a strong place financially.

Future Ted: They weren’t.

Here’s the season-three episode:

5. The series went against stereotypes and made Robin a Canadian who loves guns.

Here’s Robin (Cobie Smulders) introducing Lily to the adrenaline rush of the shooting range:

6. Remember when people accused HIMYM of racism?

“HOW I MET YOUR RACISM?” the CNN chyron read. This was referring to a recent episode (and the controversy that followed) in which the cast spoofs old kung fu movies. The show was promptly accused of insensitivity and cultural appropriation.

Here is how Bays and Thomas responded to the outrage:

Hey guys, sorry this took so long. Craig Thomas and I want to say a few words about â&#128;ª#HowIMetYourRacismâ&#128;¬. With Monday’s episode, we set out to make a silly and unabashedly immature homage to Kung Fu movies, a genre we’ve always loved. But along the way we offended people. We’re deeply sorry, and we’re grateful to everyone who spoke up to make us aware of it. We try to make a show that’s universal, that anyone can watch and enjoy. We fell short of that this week, and feel terrible about it. To everyone we offended, I hope we can regain your friendship, and end this series on a note of goodwill. Thanks.

7. The show emphasized the importance of small local news stories!

In the first season, viewers find out early on that Robin is a journalist who wants to deliver hard-hitting political news coverage. And she ends up doing so, but not before being assigned to news items she feels are of little value and far beneath her. And then the following happens on live TV, where she sees why these stories matter. (Sadly, this clarifying moment doesn’t end in the most flattering way for her.)

And finally, as fans say farewell to the series, let’s rewatch this years-old HIMYM-related clip that is wonderful, but has little to do with the politics or social issues of modern America. It’s Neil Patrick Harris and Jason Segel doing a fantastic version of “The Confrontation” from Les Misérables. Just watch it. It’s truly great:

This article is from:  

A Political History of "How I Met Your Mother"

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, Landmark, LG, ONA, PUR, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A Political History of "How I Met Your Mother"

Here Is Some Pretty Great Advice About How to Respond to a Bully, Courtesy of Wil Wheaton

by HattieCoode Posted on March 31, 2014

Mother Jones

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

Growing up is hard. Children are generally awful to each other. The world is filled with unhappy kids taking out their unhappiness on even less happy kids who then take that unhappiness out on still less happy kids. This cycle is often punctuated by tragedy.

People do this at every age, obviously, but one of the best parts of becoming an adult is realizing the shallow sophistry of bullying itself—that it has nothing to do with the bullied and everything to do with the bully’s sick psychology. But when you’re a kid and you already feel like you are alone and someone who appears to be popular and well-liked says something cruel to you, it can be hard not to think that they just may well have a point.

If time machines existed we could go and warn ourselves. “Look, young me, kids are going to say mean things to you but only because they’re from a broken home and their father didn’t go to their baseball game and they’re beginning to suspect that maybe they aren’t very bright and they have very little self-worth and they’re trying to make themselves feel better about their own mediocrity by putting you in a position that allows them to think ‘well at least I don’t have it as bad as him!'” Then—poof!—we’d vanish in a puff of smoke and our young selves’ would ride off to grade school with armor optimized for adolescence.

Sadly, time machines do not exist, but YouTube does! So, if you have a child, show them this video of Wil Wheaton explaining to a young girl how to respond to kids who may call her a “nerd.”

It was taken at the 2013 Denver Comic-Con which was a year ago but Wheaton didn’t post about it until today. It’s pretty great evergreen advice, so enjoy. Happy Sunday!

Link to original:  

Here Is Some Pretty Great Advice About How to Respond to a Bully, Courtesy of Wil Wheaton

Posted in alo, Anchor, FF, G & F, GE, LAI, LG, ONA, Pines, Radius, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Here Is Some Pretty Great Advice About How to Respond to a Bully, Courtesy of Wil Wheaton

Friday Cat Blogging – 28 March 2014

by HildredRudd Posted on March 28, 2014

Mother Jones

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

This week, in a feat of breathtaking middle-aged athleticism, Domino leaped into the empty laundry hamper and then leaped out a few minutes later. All by herself. I honestly didn’t think she still had it in her. But she seemed to enjoy herself for the few minutes she was in there, and then followed me around to find out what happened to all the clothes that had been taken out. Later on, of course, she curled up and took a nap on the fresh laundry. Quite a life, isn’t it?

Original link – 

Friday Cat Blogging – 28 March 2014

Posted in alo, FF, GE, LG, ONA, Uncategorized, Venta | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on Friday Cat Blogging – 28 March 2014

A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

by NicholeCa Posted on March 28, 2014

A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

By

Shutterstock

When it comes to fishing, most of the ocean is lawless. Fish in the high seas — the half of the world’s oceans that fall under the control of no single nation, because they’re more than 200 miles from a coastline — are being plundered with aplomb by fishing fleets that observe virtually no fish conservation rules.

Some very smart people think that might be a very stupid way of managing the world’s fisheries. They say it’s time for the world to ban fishing on the high seas.

Many of the world’s brawniest fish and shark species migrate through these open waters, where they are being targeted and overfished. Bluefin tuna are becoming so rare that a single fish sold last year for $1.8 million.

Last month, McKinsey & Company director Martin Stuchtey suggested during an ocean summit that banning fishing on the high seas would cause an economic loss of about $2 for every person on the planet. But he said the benefits of more sustainable fisheries, if such a ban was imposed, would be worth about $4 per person, creating a net benefit of $2 apiece. From Business Insider:

Hard numbers reveal that today’s fishing industry is not profitable, and as fleets work harder chasing fewer fish, the losses grow and stocks are further depleted in “a race to the bottom,” the economist explained.

Stuchtey’s numbers were approximations. But the results of a study published in the journal PLOS Biology this week put some flesh on the economist’s back-of-the-envelope calculations. An economist and a biologist, both from California, modeled the effects of such a ban and concluded that the move could double the profitability of the world’s fishing industries — and boost overall fishing yields by 30 percent. It would also boost fish stock conservation and improve the sustainability of seafood supplies.

“The closure will probably result in short-term losses of protein from the sea,” Christopher Costello, a University of California at Santa Barbara environmental and resource economics professor who coauthored the paper, told Grist. “But the key point is that these short-term losses are likely to be followed by significant long-term gains because of the rebuilding of fish stocks.”

The greatest human beneficiaries of such a ban would be residents of developing countries — nations that can’t afford the types of hulking vessels needed for high-seas fishing expeditions. The scientists say these developing nations would benefit from a rise in fish stocks in the waters they control, as would be the case for other countries.

The biggest potential losers, according to the researchers, would include Japan, China, and Spain, which operate large offshore fishing fleets. And that could make a high-seas fishing ban a difficult sell at the United Nations.

“Whether a country like Japan or China would stand to gain or lose is an empirical question that will require careful country-by-country analysis,” Costello said. “It may disadvantage a few politically powerful countries, while it advantages many smaller countries.”

Global Ocean Commission

High seas are shown in dark blue. Click to embiggen.


Source
ECONOMIST: Ban Of High-Seas Fishing Saves $2 Per Person On The Planet, Business Insider
Close the High Seas to Fishing?, PLOS Biology
Could Closing the High Seas to Fishing Save Migratory Fish?, UC Santa Barbara

John Upton is a science fan and green news boffin who tweets, posts articles to Facebook, and blogs about ecology. He welcomes reader questions, tips, and incoherent rants: johnupton@gmail.com.

Find this article interesting? Donate now to support our work.Read more: Food

Source – 

A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins

Posted in alo, Anchor, ATTRA, FF, G & F, GE, Keurig, LAI, ONA, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , | Comments Off on A high seas fishing ban scorecard: (Almost) everybody wins