Opinion // Current

added
2 days ago

It Rained Hard That Day.......

"I was too shocked to cry and I thought I'd let the sky do it for me." Great story about the magazine world and... more

jrn
added this

4 comments

added
2 days ago

Race in America: 'Progressive' cities

The 'progressive' towns constantly listed as our best role models also lack racial diversity, finds Aaron Renn. Why has no one called them on it?

Among the media and academia and within planning circles, there's a generally standing answer to the question of what cities are the best, the most progressive and best role models for small and midsize cities. The standard list includes Portland, Seattle, Austin, Minneapolis and Denver.

In particular, Portland is held up as a paradigm, with its urban growth boundary, extensive transit system, excellent cycling culture and a pro-density policy. These cities are frequently contrasted with those of the Rust Belt and South, which are found wanting, often even by locals, as "cool" urban places.

But look closely at these exemplars, and a curious fact emerges. If you take away the dominant Tier One cities like New York, Chicago and Los Angeles – places no one expects the average U.S. city to be able to imitate – you will find that the "progressive" cities aren't red or blue, but another color entirely: white.

In fact, not one of these "progressive" cities even reaches the national average for percentage of African-Americans in its core county. Perhaps not progressiveness but whiteness is the defining characteristic of the group.

The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African-American population less than half the national average. It is America's ultimate White City. The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark.

It is not just a regional thing, either. Even look just within the state of Texas, where Austin is held up as a bastion of right thinking urbanism next to sprawlvilles like Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston.

While Austin is far more diverse than a place like Portland, it is still much whiter than other major Texas cities, comparable only to Fort Worth. And while its African-American population lags the national average, Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston both exceed it.

This raises troubling questions about these cities.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-renn_22edi.State.Edition1.1691580.html
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/b/bd/AustinTexasCongressView.jpgThe 'progressive' towns constantly listed as our best role models also lack racial diversity, finds Aaron Renn. Why has... more

remanns
added this

38 comments

added
3 days ago

Women worry about their bodies 252 times a week

A survey of has shown that women are constantly concerned by their appearance and worries about ageing. One hundred women were... more

slagface
added this

1 comment

added
2 days ago

White House Pushes Science and Math Education

"To improve science and mathematics education for American children, the White House is recruiting Elmo and Big Bird, video... more

DeliaTheArtist
added this

1 comment

added
4 days ago

Christmas just ISN'T CHRISTMAS

The time of giving is soon approaching, but too soon? It seems that every year Christmas starts to peer through earlier than the last. Halloween has just past, Thanksgiving is up around the bend, but somehow Christmas sneaks its nose through the door of every store and shop before October even says goodbye. The stench of commercialism is high in the air, and it wafts freely from fir to fir. Visions of Santa Claus hohoho pure joy in the season of supposed selflessness. We all worship the Universal God of Sales- jelly belly bouncing in ecstatic glee to the rhythm of a cash register. Meals and occasional laughter are shared, but after all the wrapping is in the garbage and the ham is in the fridge, is it in good fun?

The mall barely advertises for Halloween. Thanksgiving gets no attention. Turkey Day isn't important to mall employees at all, except for a day off to get fat with the family then sweat it off amongst angry housewives with shopping bags their next shift. The day after Thanksgiving may as well be considered National American Middle-Class Shopping Day, all though it's popularly recognized as the bowel-quaking “Black Friday.” The cars crowd dangerously into aisle after aisle of taken shopping mall parking spots. A thick smog of mint Frappucino coats the walls. No one with a nut allergy is safe in the cloud of praline filling the halls. Women fight over shoes. Children run amok. Men waiting in line at the service desk get in fights in front of their toddlers. What moves people to be such a way? Surely not the mild mannered spirit of Old Saint Nick!

Whatever happened to Jesus? Not everyone in America is a Christian anymore, which may have declined the sales of Nativity sets. The spirit of giving could no longer be tied to this amazing prophet. The Dutch, centuries before in an attempt to educate children on goodness, named their Patron Saint of Children- Sinterklaas- as the seasonal gift-giver. Little did the Dutch know, years later, a revamped Sinter Klass posing as a man named Claus would embellish a series of seasonal items, ready to please all ethnicities, ages, and creeds! The Christmas hype has packaged Dutch tradition into generic American boxes shipped from China. Sadly, all of the other religions in the United States are scarcely represented in such a way. There is not a sign of the much ignored Kwanzaa or Hanukkah imagery on green and red sprinklings of television ads, and any other holiday is equally as disregarded. One rarely bears witness to Boxing Day, which is just as foreign as the former. The pressure on America as a culture to maintain a Christian-based regime through the years has been a deterrent for the knowledge of seasonal celebrations spreading.

When asking any child on the street, “What is your favorite holiday?” will most likely answer back, toothless smile grinning, “CWISMASS!” If the child is young enough, it's possible to ask, “And what is Christmas about?” To this, they will reply, “PWEZENTS!” This fictional hero in a sleigh, Santa Claus, this imposter has created a list of the good and the bad; how is he to check it even twice if the list does not exist? So it turns out, year after year, every child is “good” in the eyes of “Santa Claus” ...just as long as his parents have the money. One would think that the fine reward of a gift would teach a child the art of giving, but instead the presents get more complicated and the wish-lists get longer (or more expensive) each year. The inability of parents to communicate the actual cost and work put into achieving their little ones' dreams just applies more stress to the shopping. Children go on disregarding the true religious nature of the holiday season and forget to revel in the tiny things that can be regarded as universal gifts, such as kindness, family, and generosity. Christmas has made the world today and generations of the future seasonally selfish.

Christmas may still be holy in some hearts and celebrated on a pure level in the minds of few. Christmas is a public excuse for everyone to get excited. At times, it's like a reason to "boost" the economy by spending outrageous amounts of money. For some, it's an impulsive shopping vacation, just because it's on sale. Christmas is there to gather all of the relatives you don't ever see at the dinner table- even if really you don't want to see them. Family cooks oscillate with delight over opportunities for classy new casseroles that later go cold and uneaten. To children, it's a year of planning how to elude rules to achieve the ideal gift; little girls with pony dreams often go disappointed. There is never enough under the tree. Then, there are the few: the thoughtful, the considerate, and the kind. There are the people who try their hardest to do their most to do their best for all they love without a commercial holiday as a poor excuse. It doesn't take a price tag to make a lasting impression on the power of giving. There are people out there who just don't need Santa Claus anymore. Did we ever need him anyway?The time of giving is soon approaching, but too soon? It seems that every year Christmas starts to peer through earlier than the... more

lolitanimatronic
added this

5 comments

added
4 days ago

War Is Peace: Can Science Fight Media Disinformation?

When I saw the statement repeated online that theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking of the University of Cambridge would be dead... more

pjacobs51
added this

1 comment

added
4 days ago

Science, Evidence, and the Importance of Action

Contradictory science is nothing new within the green movement—from those who claim that solar energy could power the world to those who argue that nuclear power could solve the energy crisis, from those extolling biochar for carbon sequestration and soil improvement to those who say it could destroy the biosphere. In fact, it's in the very nature of science to constantly question, deliberate and reexamine the evidence available, and consequently there are almost always differing opinions and seemingly contradictory studies. But at some point we have to make decisions based on the science we have. At some point we have to act.

I've been thinking about this ever since a commenter on my post about green living as passive aggressive preaching asked for "absolute PROOF that all of these intrusive laws that are going to take my family's and my own personal choices are 100%, beyond a shadow of a doubt, going to 'save the earth' and all of its inhabitants."

I could not, of course, provide her with any, any more than anyone—scientist or not—can provide absolute proof of what might happen in the future. (The same commenter said in advance that she did not want "models" or "educated guesses", which rules out most methods for predicting the future that I know.) I didn't lose too much sleep over this particular issue. While the argument rumbles on for some, with Exxon now accepting the existance of man-made climate change, and with the climate skeptic's favorite scientist actually being a vocal climate action proponent, I'm ready to move on until someone shows me convincing evidence of this elaborate hoax I keep hearing about.

But accepting that man made climate change is real, and knowing what to do about it, are too different things. What if the nuclear folks are right? What if solar power is the only way? Or what if ocean iron fertilization really can sequester massive amounts of carbon? How the heck do we, as interested lay people, environmentalists, activists, or even experts, decipher all the different studies, research papers and marketing claims that are out there?

Ultimately I don't have an answer, except that we need to keep the debate going, and we all need to become literate in a broad range of disciplines. I do know that we need to assess all arguments and evidence, not just for what is being said, but also by who is saying it and where it is being said. (A peer-reviewed paper by an independent scientist is a very different beast to a marketing document from a solar company.) And I do know that our regulations should, where possible, regulate for outcomes, not promote specific technologies—a price on carbon will be much more effective than a ban on the light bulb.

We also need to be aware of our own prejudices and preconceptions—some of us will favor big, bold technological solutions, others of us will be more inclined to the small is beautiful approach. All directions are valid for consideration, but the urgency of our task requires decisive action. So let's keep learning. Let's keep debating. And let's keep demanding hard evidence. But above all, let's keep taking action.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/science_evidenc.phpContradictory science is nothing new within the green movement—from those who claim that solar energy could power the world... more

pjacobs51
added this

1 comment

added
4 days ago

Eating Roadkill: Vegan, Veganish, or Just Plain Gross?

OK, I'll admit it. I am thoroughly confused. On the one hand, I recognize that sustainability needs to appeal to the masses if we have any hope of cutting carbon emissions at the rate necessary. So palatable mainstream solutions like Zip Car, high-tech organic farming, integrating solar with agriculture, or simply encouraging urban density have more chance of saving us than hoping we all start growing our own vegetables and learning how to hunt. On the other hand, there's a lot to be learned from intrepid back-to-the-landers about efficiency, waste and reprioritizing what is truly valuable. So it's in this spirit that I offer up my next post. And the subject, dear readers, is the delightful topic of how to eat roadkill.

I know this is definitely at the extreme end of what most folks would consider acceptable, and it is hardly the stuff of mainstream sustainability. (After all, we'll have to do an awful lot of driving to feed the world on roadkill!) Nevertheless, I have a friend who used to eat pretty much vegan. The only exception she would make was eating the occasional roadkill deer that her friends would scavenge. Her argument was that she was not contributing to any market for meat, and the animal's death would otherwise have been completely in vain. This was her way of honoring the life of a fellow creature. (And she also got a tasty guilt-free meal of venison in the process.)

Of course, roadkill is hardly wasted in the classic sense—at least around our way it is usually snapped up by vultures, possums and other critters before anyone could haul it off to the dump. But we already know that roadkill creates roadkill by causing these scavengers to enter the highway, so the quicker the remains are cleared away the better. And if you're willing to make a meal out of the carcass, rather than have the local authorities cart it off, so much the better. Especially if that meal becomes a replacement for factory farmed beef.

Of course there are plenty of hygienic and safety issues involved in eating roadkill, so I am hardly advocating for anyone to go out and try it. According to eHow.com's article on How to Eat Roadkill, you need to learn how to recognize good meat from bad, you need to avoid animals with ruptured organs, and you need to cook the meat to a higher than usual temperature. And it goes without saying, you should exercise extreme caution during the harvesting process. Otherwise some dude with a pick up truck may end up cooking your remains for lunch.

As I said above, I'm not advocating roadkill as a solution to our food crisis. Given the risks, I'm not even suggesting you go out and try it. But I do think the fact that many people eat roadkill, and enjoy it, is a useful reminder to us all that waste is disgusting, that cheap and convenient meat is an oxymoron, and that, when it comes to lowering the impact of your diet, there are are many ways to skin a cat.

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/11/eating_roadkill.phpOK, I'll admit it. I am thoroughly confused. On the one hand, I recognize that sustainability needs to appeal to the masses... more

pjacobs51
added this

1 comment

added
6 days ago

British humanist campaign questions religious indoctrination of children

A British humanist campaign is questioning the morality of the religious indoctrination of children. Should children be given the... more

locutus
added this

11 comments

added
6 days ago

Is this the end for human space flight?

SO WE won't be going to Mars, not in my lifetime anyway. And not back to the moon either, not for decades. Buzz Lightyear fantasies are dashed. Don't believe the spin - the dream is over.

OK, the Augustine panel's review of NASA's human space-flight plans outlines several options. Mars may be out, but the moon is still in with a shout, and plans to go to the Lagrange points and even the asteroids are mooted. Technically, all this is probably doable. But it won't happen, and here's why.

The problem is not money: the US can afford an extra $3 billion a year. It is psychological. NASA, the only game in town, has no idea what space is for, and no audacity.

There certainly was audacity in 1961, when John F. Kennedy made his lunar pledge. The key line was not the crazy bit about landing a man on the moon, it was the hubristic promise to do so by 1970. If Wernher Von Braun had insisted the moon was unreachable before 1975, they probably would never have gone. Why? Because by 1975 Kennedy's presidency would be ancient history. Some other guy would get all the glory as Old Glory was hammered into the lunar regolith.

Of course that happened anyway, but Kennedy's reasoning must have been that, even in 1969, he would be able to bask in the glory of a successful moon shot.

It may simply be that space exploration is incompatible with US democracy. A Mars shot would take four presidential terms at least. No president will ask taxpayers to fund something he won't be around to take credit for.

Another big problem is the legacy of some terrible decisions that left NASA with the expensive, dangerous space shuttle and a white-elephant space station that manages the feat of making space seem as dull as cardboard. The whole thing is a mess.

So where now? Probably nowhere. Expect the Augustine report to be quietly forgotten. After all, we've been here before. In 1989 George Bush Snr promised the moon and Mars too, and that came to naught. The problem with these visions is that they are too sane. Human space exploration requires a tinge of madness - that theatrical Kennedy hubris - to work.

They'll probably keep the International Space Station going out of bloody-mindedness. The shuttles will fly a few more times. There will be some vague plans, more studies. Robots, of course, but no concerted attempt to look for alien life, the most compelling raison d'être for space exploration. But as to the moon, Mars, infinity and beyond, I'm afraid, in all likelihood, Buzz Lightyear will just have to wait.

Continued at link . . .

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20427355.700-is-this-the-end-for-human-space-flight.htmlSO WE won't be going to Mars, not in my lifetime anyway. And not back to the moon either, not for decades. Buzz Lightyear... more

pjacobs51
added this

2 comments

added
7 days ago

16 golden retrievers explain atoms

A crack team of PhD-trained golden retrievers illustrate the structure of atoms - the particles that make up everything around you.

TravG73
added this

2 comments

added
6 days ago

Meat without animals? Science says yes!

Winston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to keep an actual chicken. And in fact scientists have since figured out how to grow tiny nuggets of lab meat and say it will one day be possible to produce steaks in vats, sans any livestock.

Pork chops or burgers cultivated in labs could eliminate contamination problems that regularly generate headlines these days, as well as address environmental concerns that come with industrial livestock farms.

The researchers noted that growing skeletal muscle in labs — the kind people typically think of as the meat they eat — could help tackle a number of problems:

* Avoiding animal suffering by reducing the farming and killing of livestock.
* Dramatically cutting down on food-borne ailments such as mad cow disease and salmonella or germs such as swine flu, by monitoring the growth of meat in labs.
* Livestock currently take up 70 percent of all agricultural land, corresponding to 30 percent of the world's land surface, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations. Labs would presumably require much less space.
* Livestock generate 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than all of the vehicles on Earth, the FAO added. Since the animals themselves are mostly responsible for these gases, reducing livestock numbers could help alleviate global warming.

However, such research opens up strange and perhaps even disturbing possibilities once considered only the realm of science fiction. After all, who knows what kind of meat people might want to grow to eat?

In Warren Ellis and Darick Robertson's epic sci-fi satire "Transmetropolitan," supermarkets and fast food joints sell dolphin, manatee, whale, baby seal, monkey and reindeer, while the Long Pig franchise sells "cloned human meat at prices you like."

"In principle, we could harvest the meat progenitor cells from fresh human cadavers and grow meat from them," Post said. "Once taken out of its disease and animalistic, cannibalistic context — you are not killing fellow citizens for it, they are already dead — there is no reason why not."

Is there a reason why not? What do you think about growing MEAT without animals?

http://www.livescience.com/health/091119-lab-meat.htmlWinston Churchill once predicted that it would be possible to grow chicken breasts and wings more efficiently without having to... more

DeliaTheArtist
added this

97 comments

added
6 days ago

POLL RESULTS Gun Control Results

Polling Point http://www.pollingpoint.com/result/7 For Other Polls > http://www.pollingpoint.com/results/

remanns
added this

8 comments

added
8 days ago

US lawmakers rally for 'In God We Trust'

"The Freedom From Religion Foundation filed suit in July to scrub "In God We Trust" -- designated the modern US... more

DeliaTheArtist
added this

25 comments

added
10 days ago

The Future of Evolution: What Will We Become?

"The past of human evolution is more and more coming to light as scientists uncover a trove of fossils and genetic knowledge. But where might the future of human evolution go?

An old cliché has the highly evolved humans of the future sporting large heads to hold their advanced enlarged brains, "but that's nonsense, whole nonsense," said paleontologist Peter Ward at the University of Washington at Seattle, author of "Future Evolution."

"If you've ever gone through a childbirth or witnessed one," Ward says, "we're already anatomically right on the edge of how big our heads can go — our big brains have already caused extreme problems in childbirth, and if we had bigger and bigger brains, that'd cause more mothers to die in childbirth, so evolution would select against that."

Another idea, suggested by evolutionary theorist Oliver Curry of the London School of Economics, seems like a retread of ideas from science fiction writer H.G. Well's classic "The Time Machine," with the human species split in two over time — an underclass of dim-witted, short goblins, and a genetic upper class of tall, slim, healthy, attractive, intelligent and creative superhumans that eventually are spoiled by technology that will do everything for them, resembling domesticated animals.

"That's crap," Ward said. "Why would that happen? Are we like blind cavefish? After we get Google, do we get stupider? Intelligence is coded on too many genes to just lose a trait like intelligence. That's not going to happen."

Ward suggests that, if left untouched, humans might converge in appearance as populations mix. "I kind of view us all as eventually having chocolate-covered hair and medium stature, getting rid of all extremes," he speculated. "Of course, the big elephant in the room, the change from the past that you cannot ignore when talking about the future of human evolution, is genetic engineering."

Humanity now has an unparalleled means by which to direct our evolution — genetic engineering. By using viruses and other techniques, we can in theory modify our genomes, and over time, scientists may uncover genes underlying intelligence, health, athletic prowess, longevity and other desirable traits, engineering what might seem like superhuman progeny. Genetic engineering is how Ward speculated new species of humans might emerge.

"I think taboos would arise which would prevent mating between populations — 'I don't want them anymore' or 'We want natural people,'" he said. "Of course this is all pure speculation, but this is the only way I can see new human species emerging — unless we get off the planet."

Much more at link!
http://www.livescience.com/strangenews/091116-human-evolution-future.html

So much to think about...where do you think evolution will go? What does the future hold for humans?"The past of human evolution is more and more coming to light as scientists uncover a trove of fossils and genetic knowledge.... more

DeliaTheArtist
added this

46 comments

added
2 months ago

immirgration problem or a non free dream...?

Some people seem to think illegal immigration isn't a problem, not to sound like a bitch but you wouldn't if you or your parents were illegals and if they weren't your grandparents. And what's with everyone saying that this country was built on the backs of immigrates, i didn't know slaves migrated to this country it was built on slavery and free labor that's the truth. Wanting a better life is great but it's hard to say i want better life and can't get to where i come from and then claim you deserve to be a citizen because all you want to do is work and have a life for your family and kids. What about the guy who's family knows nothing else besides America and also wants a better life but can't achieve that because someone says i'll do the work cheaper and longer with no health coverage and no benefits, cash only.
In no other country can illegal immigrates demand anything, only in the great USA, so i say give them their citizenship, you want to claim to be true American citizen then pay taxes, you believe you have a right to the same health care and rights then you should pay for it. If we registered every illegal immigrate and then taxed them out the ass, set in place laws that had harsher penalties like actual jail time instead of a free trip home, i bet you people would think twice about running across the border or coming to America for vacation and staying. I'm just wondering why people feel if you say "you don't deserve shit and the fact you get taken advantage of is your own fault", their a racist and that America and should be open for any and everyone.
But it is your fault you get paid low wages and have no health care and get taken advantage of, since when is anything in this world for free..? why do you think that what you go through in your country gives you a right to come to another and make it hard on another man. Mexico's president even stated to the world "that illegals take the jobs that not even blacks want"
and he's damn right we've worked them since 1506 for FREE and the little bit of minimum wage blacks fought and died for won't go up cause someone with no papers will work for anything. Rules are set in place for a reason, they might suck but you can't make a change if your willing to be happy eating shit all you do is make it stink for the rest of us.
Not only would it help us out with our hugh debt, create jobs and force us to over haul the entire system cause you know someones gonna get mad and swear a great injustice but wheres the justice for us actual tax paying, social security card carrying citizens...?
i love George Lopez but he's an idiot to think that illegal immigration only upsets white people as if AMERICANS don't need a job. He represents his country to the fullest yet we as Americans don't have the same right?. If we flooded his country and under cut his fellow men,push them out of jobs then tell them you really don't want to work this job let me do it as well as stressed the medical system and basically did what we wanted in Mexico they claim the capitalist Americanos were destroying his homeland and we'd just continue to be the big mean super power.

i think any time people think it's OK for any group of people to break the law to better your self, at the expense of others.....your the true capitalist, liar, cheat and thiefSome people seem to think illegal immigration isn't a problem, not to sound like a bitch but you wouldn't if you or your... more