deadspin | You
may have heard that the highest-paid employee in each state is usually
the football coach at the largest state school. This is actually a gross
mischaracterization: Sometimes it is the basketball coach.
Based
on data drawn from media reports and state salary databases, the ranks
of the highest-paid active public employees include 27 football coaches,
13 basketball coaches, one hockey coach, and 10 dorks who aren't even
in charge of a team.
So are my hard-earned tax dollars paying these coaches?
Probably
not. The bulk of this coaching money—especially at the big football
schools—is paid out of the revenue that the teams generate.
So what's the problem then? These guys make tons of money for their schools; shouldn't they be paid accordingly?
There are at least three problems.
Coaches
don't generate revenue on their own; you could make the exact same case
for the student-athletes who actually play the game and score the
points and fracture their legs.
It can be tough to attribute this revenue directly to the performance of the head coach. In 2011-2012, Mack Brown was paid $5 million to lead a mediocre 8-5 Texas team to the Holiday Bowl. The team still generated $103.8 million in revenue, the most in college football. You don't have to pay someone $5 million to make college football profitable in Texas.
This revenue rarely makes its way back to the general funds of these universities. Looking at data from 2011-2012,
athletic departments at 99 major schools lost an average of $5 million
once you take out revenue generated from "student fees" and "university
subsidies." If you take out "contributions and donations"—some of which
might have gone to the universities had they not been lavished on the
athletic departments—this drops to an average loss of $17 million, with
just one school (Army) in the black. All this football/basketball
revenue is sucked up by coach and AD salaries, by administrative and facility costs, and by the athletic department's non-revenue generating sports; it's not like it's going to microscopes and Bunsen burners
yahoo-finance | The U.S. is home to some of the greatest colleges and
universities in the world. But with the student debt load at more than
$1 trillion and youth unemployment elevated, when assessing the value of
a college education, that’s only one part of the story.
Former Secretary of Education William Bennett, author of Is College Worth It,
sat down with The Daily Ticker on the sidelines of the Milken
Institute's 2013 Global Conference to talk about whether college is
worth it.
“We have about 21 million people in higher education, and about half
the people who start four year colleges don’t finish,” Bennett tells The
Daily Ticker. “Those who do finish, who graduated in 2011 - half were
either unemployed or radically underemployed and in debt.”
That average student loan balance for a 25-year-old is $20,326,
according to the Federal Reserve of New York. Student debt is second
largest source of U.S. household debt, after only mortgages.
Bennett assessed the “return on investment” for the 3500 colleges and
universities in the country. He found that returns were positive for
only 150 institutions. The top 10 schools ranked by Bennett as having
the best "ROI" are below (for the full list he used, click here, and for the latest figures, click here):
fortune | Being jobless is an awful thing for anyone no matter where they live.
But it's especially unnerving for young people just starting their
careers. A lot has been written about the topic lately, but two new
reports show the job employment picture likely won't get any better for
young people living in the world's richest countries. And in many ways,
America's young people today have it worse than even parts of
debt-troubled Europe.
The findings come as thousands graduate from college this month.
Graduates may have hung up their hard-earned diplomas today, but for
many it will be a huge struggle to find jobs they studied hard for.
Across the world's richest countries, joblessness among 15- to
24-year-olds is estimated at 12.6%, close to its crisis peak, according
to the International Labor Organization.
The problem is most pronounced in a few parts of the world, including
developed economies, such as the United States and parts of Europe.
In 2012, the rate of joblessness in the richest countries rose to a
decades-long high of 18.1%, according to the ILO, which doesn't see the
rate drop below 17% before 2016.
REGARDING THE BUENA VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT BUDGET CRISIS
Buena
Vista School District and its community of parents and stakeholders has
a long tradition of pride and excellence. We pride ourselves on the
caring and committed staff with which we are blessed and consider it our
highest calling to be entrusted with the care and education of the
community’s children.
Recent reductions in state school aid,
combined with a severe drop in enrollment have created a situation where
the District has not been able to get small enough fast enough. Adding
to this problem is the fact that the District must return to the state
funds related to the Wolverine Secure Treatment Center which it
continued to receive after the program severed ties with the District in
2012. The District brought its receipt of these funds to the attention
of the State during a meeting with state officials to discuss a draft of
its deficit elimination plan in February. All of this came into focus
when the State did not transmit the District’s April state school aid.
Upon
noting that state school aid was not received in April as planned, the
District made inquiry of the State and was told that state school aid
for April, May and June would be withheld to recoup the funds that were
mistakenly sent to the District. We remain in contact with officials at
the State, the Intermediate School District and our surrounding
districts. We have been told by State officials that a prerequisite to
continuing dialogue is the District’s completion of a satisfactory
deficit elimination plan. We are and have been working diligently to
meet this requirement, and appreciate the technical assistance that
State officials have provided regarding the deficit elimination plan.Fist tap Dale.
guardian | For all Raine's rigour, his discipline of "neurocriminology" still
remains tarnished, for some, by association with 19th-century
phrenology, the belief that criminal behaviour stemmed from defective
brain organisation as evidenced in the shape of the skull. The idea was
first proposed by the infamous Franz Joseph Gall, who claimed to have
identified over- or underdeveloped brain "organs" that gave rise to
specific character: the organ of destructiveness, of covetousness and so
on, which were recognisable to the phrenologist by bumps on the head.
Phrenology was widely influential in criminal law in both the United
States and Europe in the middle of the 1800s, and often used to support
crude racial and class-based stereotypes of criminal behaviour.
The
divisive thinking was developed further in 1876 by Cesare Lombroso, an
Italian surgeon, after he conducted a postmortem on a serial murderer
and rapist. Lombroso discovered a hollow part of the killer's brain,
where the cerebellum would be, from which he proposed that violent
criminals were throwbacks to less evolved human types, again
identifiable by ape-like physical characteristics. The political
manipulation of such hypotheses in the eugenics movement eventually saw
them wholly outlawed and discredited.
As one result, after the
second world war, crime became attributable to economic and political
factors, or psychological disturbances, but not to biology. Prompted by advances in genetics
and neuroscience, however, that consensus is increasingly fragile, and
the implications of those scientific advances for law – and for concepts
such as culpability and responsibility – are only now being tested.
Raine
is by no means alone in this argument, though his highly readable book
serves as an invaluable primer to both the science and the ethical
concerns. As the polymath David Eagleman,
director of neuroscience and law at Baylor College in Texas, recently
pointed out, knowledge in this area has advanced to the point where it
is perverse to be in denial. What are we to do, for example, Eagleman
asked, with the fact that "if you are a carrier of one particular set of
genes, the probability that you will commit a violent crime is four
times as high as it would be if you lacked those genes. You're three
times as likely to commit a robbery, five times as likely to commit
aggravated assault, eight times as likely to be arrested for murder and
13 times as likely to be arrested for a sexual offence. The overwhelming
majority of prisoners carry these genes; 98.1% of death row inmates do…
Can we honestly say that the carriers of those genes have exactly the
same range of choices in their behaviour as those who do not possess
them? And if they do not, should they be judged and punished by the same
standard?"
Raine's work is full of this kind of statistic and
this kind of question. (One of his more startling findings is the
extraordinarily high level of psychopathic markers among employees of a
temping agency he studied, which came as no surprise to him.
"Psychopaths can't settle, they need to move around, look for new
stimulation," he says.) He draws on a number of studies that show the
links between brain development, in particular – and brain injury and
impairment by extension – and criminal violence. Already legal defence
teams, particularly in the US, are using brain scans and neuroscience as
mitigating evidence in the trials of violent criminals and sex
offenders. In this sense, Raine believes a proper public debate on the
implications of his science is long overdue.
Raine was in part
drawn to his discipline by his own background. In the course of scanning
his murderers, Raine also examined his own PET profile and found,
somewhat to his alarm, that the structure of his brain seemed to share
more characteristics with the psychopathic murderers than with the
control group.
He laughs quickly when I ask how that discovery
felt. "When you have a brain scan that looks like a serial killer's it
does give you pause," he says. And there were other factors: he has
always had a markedly low heart rate (which his research has shown to be
a truer indicator of a capacity for violence than, say, smoking is as a
cause of lung cancer). He was plagued by cracked lips as a child,
evidence of riboflavin deficiency (another marker); he was born at home;
he was a blue baby, all factors in the kind of developmental
difficulties that might set his own researcher's alarm bells ringing.
"So,"
he says, "I was on the spectrum. And in fact I did have some issues. I
was taken to hospital aged five to have my stomach pumped because I had
drunk a lot of alcohol. From age nine to 11 I was pretty antisocial, in a
gang, smoking, letting car tyres down, setting fire to mailboxes, and
fighting a lot, even though I was quite small. But at that age I burnt
out of that somehow. At 11, I changed schools, got more interested in
studying and really became a different sort of kid. Still, when I was
graduating and thinking 'what shall I research?', I looked back on the
essays I'd written and one of the best was on the biology of
psychopaths; I was fascinated by that, partly, I think, because I had
always wondered about that early behaviour in myself."
As Raine
began to explore the subject more, he began to look at the reasons he
became a researcher of violent criminality, rather than a violent
criminal. (Recent studies suggest his biology might equally have
propelled him towards other careers – bomb disposal expert, corporate
executive or journalist – that tend to attract individuals with those
"psychopathic" traits.) Despite his unusual brain structure, he didn't
have the low IQ that is often apparent in killers, or any cognitive
dysfunction. Still, as he worked for four years interviewing people in
prison, a lot of the time he was thinking: what stopped me being on
their side of the bars?
Raine's biography, then, was a good
corrective to the seductive idea that our biology is our fate and that a
brain scan can tell us who we are. Fist tap Big Don.
Four years ago, long before he’d join the Heritage Foundation, before
Marco Rubio was even in the Senate, Jason Richwine armed a time bomb. A
three-member panel at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government accepted Richwine’s thesis,
titled “IQ and Immigration Policy.” In it, Richwine provided
statistical evidence that Hispanic immigrants, even after several
generations, had lower IQs than non-Hispanic whites. Immigration
reformers were fools if they didn’t grapple with that.
"Visceral opposition to IQ selection can sometimes generate
sensationalistic claims—for example, that this is an attempt to revive
social Darwinism, eugenics, racism, etc,” wrote Richwine. “Nothing of
that sort is true. … an IQ selection system could utilize individual
intelligence test scores without any resort to generalizations.”
This week, Heritage released a damning estimate
of the immigration bill, co-authored by Richwine. The new study was all
about cost, totally eliding the IQ issues that Richwine had mastered,
but it didn’t matter after Washington Post reporter Dylan Matthews found the dissertation. Heritage hurried
to denounce it—“its findings in no way reflect the positions of The
Heritage Foundation”—and Richwine has ducked any more questions from the
press.
His friends and advisers saw this coming. Immigration reform’s
political enemies know—and can’t stand—that racial theorists are
cheering them on from the cheap seats. They know that the left wants to
exploit that—why else do so many cameras sprout up whenever Minutemen
appear on the border, or when Pat Buchanan comes out of post-post-post
retirement to write another book about the “death of the West?”
Academics aren’t so concerned with the politics. But they know all
too well the risks that come with research connecting IQ and race. At
the start of his dissertation, Richwine thanked his three
advisers—George Borjas, Christopher Jenks, and Richard Zeckhauser—for
being so helpful and so bold. Borjas “helped me navigate the minefield
of early graduate school,” he wrote. “Richard Zeckhauser, never someone
to shy away from controversial ideas, immediately embraced my work.”
Yet they don’t embrace everything Richwine’s done since. “Jason’s
empirical work was careful,” Zeckhauser told me over email. “Moreover,
my view is that none of his advisors would have accepted his thesis had
he thought that his empirical work was tilted or in error. However,
Richwine was too eager to extrapolate his empirical results to
inferences for policy.”
Borjas’ own work on immigration and inequality has led to a few two-minutes-hate moments in the press. He wasn’t entirely convinced by Richwine, either.
“I have never worked on anything even remotely related to IQ, so
don't really know what to think about the relation between IQ,
immigration, etc,” Borjas told me in an email. “In fact, as I know I
told Jason early on since I've long believed this, I don't find the IQ
academic work all that interesting. Economic outcomes and IQ are only
weakly related, and IQ only measures one kind of ability. I've been
lucky to have met many high-IQ people in academia who are total losers,
and many smart, but not super-smart people, who are incredibly
successful because of persistence, motivation, etc. So I just think
that, on the whole, the focus on IQ is a bit misguided.”
But Richwine had been fascinated by it, and for a very long time, in
an environment that never discouraged it. Anyone who works in Washington
and wants to explore the dark arts of race and IQ research is in the
right place. The city’s a bit like a college campus, where investigating
“taboo” topics is rewarded, especially on the right. A liberal squeals
“racism,” and they hear the political correctness cops (most often, the
Southern Poverty Law Center) reporting a thinkcrime. Fist tap Big Don.
guardian | 'I never did anything for money. I never set money as a goal. It was a result." So says Bob Diamond,
formerly the chief executive of Barclays. In doing so Diamond lays
waste to the justification that his bank and others (and their
innumerable apologists in government and the media) have advanced for
surreal levels of remuneration – to incentivise hard work and talent.
Prestige, power, a sense of purpose: for them, these are incentives
enough.
Others of his class – Bernie Ecclestone and Jeroen van der
Veer (the former chief executive of Shell), for example – say the same.
The capture by the executive class of so much wealth performs no useful
function. What the very rich appear to value is relative income. If
executives were all paid 5% of current levels, the competition between
them (a questionable virtue anyway) would be no less fierce. As
the immensely rich HL Hunt commented several decades ago: "Money is just a way of keeping score."
The desire for advancement along this scale appears to be insatiable. In March Forbes magazine published an article about Prince Alwaleed,
who, like other Saudi princes, doubtless owes his fortune to nothing
more than hard work and enterprise. According to one of the prince's
former employees, the Forbes magazine global rich list "is how he wants
the world to judge his success or his stature".
The result is "a
quarter-century of intermittent lobbying, cajoling and threatening when
it comes to his net worth listing". In 2006, the researcher responsible
for calculating his wealth writes, "when Forbes estimated that the
prince was actually worth $7 billion less than he said he was, he called
me at home the day after the list was released, sounding nearly in
tears. 'What do you want?' he pleaded, offering up his private banker in
Switzerland. 'Tell me what you need.'"
Never mind that he has his
own 747, in which he sits on a throne during flights. Never mind that
his "main palace" has 420 rooms. Never mind that he possesses his own
private amusement park and zoo – and, he claims, $700m worth of jewels.
Never mind that he's the richest man in the Arab world,
valued by Forbes at $20bn, and has watched his wealth increase by
$2bn in the past year. None of this is enough. There is no place of
arrival, no happy landing, even in a private jumbo jet. The politics of
envy are never keener than among the very rich.
guardian | Beijing's building boom has already spawned a wealth of novelty forms, with a stadium in the shape of a bird's nest, a theatre nicknamed the egg, and a TV headquarters that has been likened to a giant pair of underpants. But the official People's Daily newspaper might have trumped them all with its new office building, which appears to be modelled on a colossal phallus.
Photos of the scaffold-shrouded shaft have been circulating on Weibo,
the Chinese micro-blogging site, to the authorities' dismay, with
censors working overtime to remove the offending images. "It seems the
People's Daily is going to rise up, there's hope for the Chinese dream,"
commented one user. "Of course the national mouthpiece should be imposing," added another.
The 150m-tall tower, located in the city's eastern business district, appropriately near OMA's pants-shaped CCTV headquarters, is the work of architect Zhou Qi, a professor at Jiangsu's Southeast University.
"Our way of expression is kind of extreme," Zhou told the Modern Express
newspaper, "different from the culture of moderation that Chinese
people are accustomed to." He explained the design was inspired not by
part of his anatomy, but by the traditional Chinese philosophy of "round
sky and square earth" – the tower tapers from a square base to a
cylindrical top. He claimed that the elongated spherical form was
designed to recall the Chinese character for "people" from above. The
fact it might look like a male member from below was clearly a secondary
concern.
bnarchives | This paper outlines the contours of a new research agenda for the
analysis of food price crises. By weaving together a detailed
quantitative examination of changes in corporate profit shares with a
qualitative appraisal of the restructuring in business control over the
organisation of society and nature, the paper points to the rapid
ascendance of a new power configuration in the global political economy
of food: the Agro-Trader nexus. The agribusiness and grain trader firms
that belong to the Agro-Trader nexus have not been mere 'price takers',
instead they have actively contributed to the inflationary restructuring
of the world food system by championing and facilitating the rapid
expansion of the first-generation biofuels sector. As a key driver of
agricultural commodity price rises, the biofuels boom has raised the
Agro-Trader nexus’s differential profits and it has at the same time
deepened global hunger. These findings suggest that food price inflation
is a mechanism of redistribution.
Just how bad things are can be determined through analysis of 2010 Census data.
The average black person lives in a neighborhood that is 45 percent
black. Without segregation, his neighborhood would be only 13 percent
black, according to professors John Logan and Brian Stults at Brown and Florida State.
Logan and Stult evaluated segregation in major cities with a dissimilarity
index, which identifies the percentage of one group that would have to
move to a different neighborhood to eliminate segregation. A score above 60 on the dissimilarity index is considered extreme.
In the following slides, we have ranked the most segregated cities in ascending order. They are illustrated with maps of cities by race created by Eric Fischer and publicly available on Flickr. The red dots show white people, blue is black, orange is Hispanic, green is Asian, and yellow is other.
newyorker | hen we all finished filing our tax returns last
week, there was a little something missing: two trillion dollars. That’s
how much money Americans may have made in the past year that didn’t get
reported to the I.R.S., according to a recent study by the economist
Edgar Feige, who’s been investigating the so-called underground, or
gray, economy for thirty-five years. It’s a huge number: if the
government managed to collect taxes on all that income, the deficit
would be trivial. This unreported income is being earned, for the most
part, not by drug dealers or Mob bosses but by tens of millions of
people with run-of-the-mill jobs—nannies, barbers, Web-site designers,
and construction workers—who are getting paid off the books. Ordinary
Americans have gone underground, and, as the recovery continues to limp
along, they seem to be doing it more and more.
Measuring an
unreported economy is obviously tricky. But look closely and you can see
the traces of a booming informal economy everywhere. As Feige said to
me, “The best footprint left in the sand by this economy that doesn’t
want to be observed is the use of cash.” His studies show that, while
economists talk about the advent of a cashless society, Americans still
hold an enormous amount of cold, hard cash—as much as seven hundred and
fifty billion dollars. The percentage of Americans who don’t use banks
is surprisingly high, and on the rise. Off-the-books activity also helps
explain a mystery about the current economy: even though the percentage
of Americans officially working has dropped dramatically, and even
though household income is still well below what it was in 2007,
personal consumption is higher than it was before the recession, and
retail sales have been growing briskly (despite a dip in March). Bernard
Baumohl, an economist at the Economic Outlook Group, estimates that,
based on historical patterns, current retail sales are actually what
you’d expect if the unemployment rate were around five or six per cent,
rather than the 7.6 per cent we’re stuck with. The difference, he
argues, probably reflects workers migrating into the shadow economy.
“It’s typical that during recessions people work on the side while
collecting unemployment,” Baumohl told me. “But the severity of the
recession and the profound weakness of this recovery may mean that a lot
more people have entered the underground economy, and have had to stay
there longer.”
The increasing importance of the gray economy
isn’t only a reaction to the downturn: studies suggest that the sector
has been growing steadily over the years. In 1992, the I.R.S. estimated
that the government was losing $80 billion a year in income-tax revenue.
Its estimate for 2006 was $385 billion—almost five times as much (and
still an underestimate, according to Feige’s numbers). The U.S. is
certainly a long way from, say, Greece, where tax evasion is a national
sport and the shadow economy accounts for twenty-seven per cent of
G.D.P. But the forces pushing people to work off the books are powerful.
Feige points to the growing distrust of government as one important
factor. The desire to avoid licensing regulations, which force people to
jump through elaborate hoops just to get a job, is another. Most
important, perhaps, are changes in the way we work. As Baumohl put it,
“For businesses, the calculus of hiring has fundamentally changed.”
Companies have got used to bringing people on as needed and then
dropping them when the job is over, and they save on benefits and
payroll taxes by treating even full-time employees as independent
contractors. Casual employment often becomes under-the-table work; the
arrangement has become a way of life in the construction industry. In a
recent California survey of three hundred thousand contractors,
two-thirds said they had no direct employees, meaning that they did not
need to pay workers’-compensation insurance or payroll taxes. In other
words, for lots of people off-the-books work is the only job available.
theatlantic | Elevated and lasting unemployment is an awful thing, anywhere, and
for anyone. But it is awful in a special way for young people, cutting
them off from networks and starting salaries at the moment they need to
forge connections and begin to cobble together a career.
A new study from the International Labor Organization
takes a global tour of youth joblessness and finds that what's gone up
won't come down in the next five years. The youth unemployment rate*
among the richest countries is projected to flat-line, rather than fall,
before 2018. As a result, the global Millennial generation could be
uniquely scarred by the economic downturn. Research by Lisa Kahn has showed that people graduating into a recession have typically faced a lifetime of lower wages.
As Ritchie King from Quartz shows in the graph to the left, it's now "harder for a teenager or
young adult to find a job in developed economies than in Sub-Saharan
Africa."
Lurking under the rise of youth unemployment among the richest countries is an even scarier trend -- the rise of long-term
youth unemployment. Long-term unemployment isn't just a difference in
length; it's a difference in kind, because the more time you spend out
of a company, the less likely you are to be hired back into one. In many European countries, particularly Spain,
the increase in unemployment has come almost exclusively from people
being out of work longer than two-years. In advanced economies,
"longterm unemployment has arrived as an unexpected tax on the current
generation of youth," ILO writes. About half of Europe's unemployed
youth have been out of work for more than six months, according to 2011
data.
American audiences are probably most interested in how
our Millennial generation compares to young people around the world. So,
from table B1 at the end of the paper, I picked a few OECD countries and graphed the last eight years of youth unemployment.
rt | Israel used "a new type of weapon", a senior official at the Syrian
military facility that came under attack from the Israeli Air Force told
RT.
“When the explosion happened it felt like an earthquake,”
said the source, who was present near the attack site on the
outskirts of Damascus on Sunday morning.
“Then a giant golden mushroom of fire appeared. This tells us
that Israel used depleted uranium shells.”
Depleted uranium is a by-product of the uranium enrichment
process that creates nuclear weapons, and was first used by the US
in the Gulf conflict of 1991. Unlike the radioactive materials used
in nuclear weapons, depleted uranium is not valued for its
explosiveness, but for its toughness – it is 2.5 times as dense as
steel – which allows it to penetrate heavy protection.
Countries using depleted uranium weapons insist that the
material is toxic, but not dangerously radioactive, as long as it
remains outside the body.
The source also claims the attack – if it managed to hit the
objects it targeted – served more of a political than a military
purpose.
“Several civilian factories and buildings were destroyed. The
target was just an ordinary weapons warehouse. The bombing is an
ultimatum to us – it had no strategic motivation.”
Western intelligence sources told the media that the strikes
targeted transfers of weapons from the Lebanese Hezbollah movement,
which is sympathetic to the government of Syrian President Bashar
Assad.
The official who spoke to RT denies this.
“There was no valuable equipment at the site. It was all
removed after a previous attack on the facility. The military
losses from this are negligible.”
guardian | The celebrated physicist Stephen Hawking became embroiled in a deepening furore today over his decision to boycott a prestigious conference in Israel in protest over the state's occupation of Palestine.
Hawking,
a world-renowned scientist and bestselling author who has had motor
neurone disease for 50 years, cancelled his appearance at the
high-profile Presidential Conference, which is personally sponsored by
Israel's president, Shimon Peres, after a barrage of appeals from
Palestinian academics.
The move, denounced by prominent Israelis
and welcomed by pro-Palestinian campaigners, entangled Cambridge
University – Hawking's academic base since 1975 – which initially
claimed the scientist's withdrawal was on medical grounds, before
conceding a political motivation.
The university's volte-face came
after the Guardian presented it with the text of a letter sent from
Hawking to the organisers of the high-profile conference in Jerusalem,
clearly stating that he was withdrawing from the conference in order to
respect the call for a boycott by Palestinian academics.
The full
text of the letter, dated 3 May, said: "I accepted the invitation to the
Presidential Conference with the intention that this would not only
allow me to express my opinion on the prospects for a peace settlement
but also because it would allow me to lecture on the West Bank. However,
I have received a number of emails from Palestinian academics. They are
unanimous that I should respect the boycott. In view of this, I must
withdraw from the conference. Had I attended, I would have stated my
opinion that the policy of the present Israeli government is likely to
lead to disaster."
Hawking's decision to throw his weight behind
the academic boycott of Israel met with an angry response from the
organisers of the Presidential Conference, an annual event hosted by
Israeli president Shimon Peres.
"The academic boycott against
Israel is in our view outrageous and improper, certainly for someone for
whom the spirit of liberty lies at the basis of his human and academic
mission," said conference chairman Israel Maimon. "Israel is a democracy
in which all individuals are free to express their opinions, whatever
they may be. The imposition of a boycott is incompatible with open,
democratic dialogue."
Daniel Taub, the Israeli ambassador to
London, said: "It is a great shame that Professor Hawking has withdrawn
from the president's conference … Rather than caving into pressure from
political extremists, active participation in such events is a far more
constructive way to promote progress and peace."
The Wolf
Foundation, which awarded Hawking the Wolf prize in physics in 1988,
said it was "sad to learn that someone of Professor Hawking's standing
chose to capitulate to irrelevant pressures and will refrain from
visiting Israel".
But Palestinians welcomed Hawking's decision.
"Palestinians deeply appreciate Stephen Hawking's support for an
academic boycott of Israel," said Omar Barghouti, a founding member of
the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. "We think this will
rekindle the kind of interest among international academics in academic
boycotts that was present in the struggle against apartheid in South
Africa."
guardian | Professor Stephen Hawking is backing the academic boycott of Israel
by pulling out of a conference hosted by Israeli president Shimon Peres
in Jerusalem as a protest at Israel's treatment of Palestinians.
Hawking,
71, the world-renowned theoretical physicist and former Lucasian
Professor of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge, had accepted an
invitation to headline the fifth annual president's conference, Facing
Tomorrow, in June, which features major international personalities,
attracts thousands of participants and this year will celebrate Peres's
90th birthday.
Hawking is in very poor health, but last week he
wrote a brief letter to the Israeli president to say he had changed his
mind. He has not announced his decision publicly, but a statement
published by the British Committee for the Universities of Palestine
with Hawking's approval described it as "his independent decision to
respect the boycott, based upon his knowledge of Palestine, and on the
unanimous advice of his own academic contacts there".
Hawking's
decision marks another victory in the campaign for boycott, divestment
and sanctions targeting Israeli academic institutions.
In April
the Teachers' Union of Ireland became the first lecturers' association
in Europe to call for an academic boycott of Israel, and in the United
States members of the Association for Asian American Studies voted to
support a boycott, the first national academic group to do so.
In
the four weeks since Hawking's participation in the Jerusalem event was
announced, he has been bombarded with messages from Britain and abroad
as part of an intense campaign by boycott supporters trying to persuade
him to change his mind. In the end, Hawking told friends, he decided to
follow the advice of Palestinian colleagues who unanimously agreed that
he should not attend.
Hawking's decision met with abusive
responses on Facebook, with many commentators focusing on his physical
condition, and some accusing him of antisemitism.
By participating
in the boycott, Hawking joins a small but growing list of British
personalities who have turned down invitations to visit Israel,
including Elvis Costello, Roger Waters, Brian Eno, Annie Lennox and Mike
Leigh.
medialens | Last August, Barack Obama told reporters at the White House:
'We have been very clear to the Assad
regime... that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of
chemical weapons moving around or being utilised.
'That would change my calculus; that would change my equation.'
This was a clear threat to repeat the 2011 Nato assault which
resulted in the overthrow and murder of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.
So what is the evidence that Assad recently chose to do the one thing most likely to trigger a Western attack and similar fate?
On April 25, the White House claimed
that US intelligence assessed 'with varying degrees of confidence' that
'the Syrian regime has used chemical weapons on a small scale in Syria,
specifically the chemical agent sarin'.
Having offered this caveated assertion, US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel added:
'We cannot confirm the origin of these
weapons... but we do believe that any use of chemical weapons in Syria
would very likely have originated with the Assad regime.'
He concluded:
'As I've said, this is serious business – we need all the facts.'
A sceptical Alex Thomson, chief correspondent at Channel 4 News, commented:
'WMD, the Middle East, and here we go
again... Already a British prime minister is talking about a "war crime"
whilst offering the British people no detailed evidence.'
Evidence included video footage said to show victims of chemical weapons foaming at the mouth.
Thomson offered a link to a detailed report of the 1995 sarin attack in Tokyo, noting: 'am advised there's no mention of any prominent bright, white foam at mouths'.
Thomson also asked, reasonably: 'Why doesn't any medic in the film
wipe away the white foam on patients' mouths – the basic paramedic
fundamental to preserve an airway?'
zerohedge | While there have been no new military attacks on Syria since Sunday
morning, something more peculiar happened in the past few hours, when
according to Akamai and various other Internet traffic trackers, Syria
has literally gone "dark", or, as Umbrella Security Labs describes it, as if "Syria has largely disappeared from the Internet."
At around 18:45 UTC OpenDNS resolvers saw a
significant drop in traffic from Syria. On closer inspection it seems
Syria has largely disappeared from the Internet.
The graph below shows DNS traffic from and to Syria.
Although Twitter remains relatively silent, the drop in both inbound and
outbound traffic from Syria is clearly visible. The small amount of
outbound traffic depicted by the chart indicates our DNS servers trying
to reach DNS servers in Syria.
Currently both TLD servers for Syria, ns1.tld.sy and
ns2.tld.sy are unreachable. The remaining two nameservers
sy.cctld.authdns.ripe.net. and pch.anycast.tld.sy. are reachable since
they are not within Syria.
The Umbrella Security Labs also reported
on an Internet blackout in Syria November of 2012, where we shared
details of the top 10 most failed domains during the outage.
yes | A century ago, industrialists like Andrew Carnegie believed that
Darwin’s theories justified an economy of vicious competition and
inequality. They left us with an ideological legacy that says the
corporate economy, in which wealth concentrates in the hands of a few,
produces the best for humanity. This was always a distortion of Darwin’s
ideas. His 1871 book The Descent of Man argued that the human species
had succeeded because of traits like sharing and compassion. “Those
communities,” he wrote, “which included the greatest number of the most
sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of
offspring.” Darwin was no economist, but wealth-sharing and cooperation
have always looked more consistent with his observations about human
survival than the elitism and hierarchy that dominates contemporary
corporate life.
Nearly 150 years later, modern science has verified Darwin’s early
insights with direct implications for how we do business in our society.
New peer-reviewed research by Michael Tomasello, an American
psychologist and co-director of the Max Planck Institute for
Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, has synthesized three
decades of research to develop a comprehensive evolutionary theory of
human cooperation. What can we learn about sharing as a result?
Tomasello holds that there were two key steps that led to humans’
unique form of interdependence. The first was all about who was coming
to dinner. Approximately two million years ago, a fledgling species
known as Homo habilis emerged on the great plains of Africa. At
the same time that these four-foot-tall, bipedal apes appeared, a period
of global cooling produced vast, open environments. This climate change
event ultimately forced our hominid ancestors to adapt to a new way of
life or perish entirely. Since they lacked the ability to take down
large game, like the ferocious carnivores of the early Pleistocene, the
solution they hit upon was scavenging the carcasses of recently killed
large mammals. The analysis of fossil bones from this period has
revealed evidence of stone-tool cut marks overlaid on top of carnivore
teeth marks. The precursors of modern humans had a habit of arriving
late to the feast.
However, this survival strategy brought an entirely new set of
challenges: Individuals now had to coordinate their behaviors, work
together, and learn how to share. For apes living in the dense
rainforest, the search for ripe fruit and nuts was largely an individual
activity. But on the plains, our ancestors needed to travel in groups
to survive, and the act of scavenging from a single animal carcass
forced proto-humans to learn to tolerate each other and allow each other
a fair share. This resulted in a form of social selection that favored
cooperation: “Individuals who attempted to hog all of the food at a
scavenged carcass would be actively repelled by others,” writes
Tomasello, “and perhaps shunned in other ways as well.”
seattlepi | Along
the irrigation canal that cuts through this centuries-old New Mexico
town, a small group of churchgoers gathers to recite the rosary before
tossing rose petals into the water.
Remnants
of a tradition that stretches back to the days of Spanish explorers,
the humble offerings are aimed at blessing this year's meager irrigation
season and easing a relentless drought that continues to march across
New Mexico and much of the western half of the U.S.
From
the heart of New Mexico to West Texas and Oklahoma, the pressures of
drought have resulted in a resurgence of faith — from Christian
preachers and Catholic priests encouraging prayer processions to
American Indian tribes using their closely guarded traditions in an
effort to coax Mother Nature to deliver some much needed rain.
On Sunday, congregations across eastern New Mexico and West Texas are planning a day of prayer for moisture and rain.
NYTimes | It’s easy to believe the worst is over in the economic downturn. But
for African-Americans, the pain continues — over 13 percent of black
workers are unemployed, nearly twice the national average. And that’s
not a new development: regardless of the economy, job prospects for
African-Americans have long been significantly worse than for the
country as a whole.
The most obvious explanation for this entrenched disparity is racial
discrimination. But in my research I have found a somewhat different
culprit: favoritism. Getting an inside edge by using help from family
and friends is a powerful, hidden force driving inequality in the United
States.
Such favoritism has a strong racial component. Through such seemingly
innocuous networking, white Americans tend to help other whites,
because social resources are concentrated among whites. If
African-Americans are not part of the same networks, they will have a
harder time finding decent jobs.
The mechanism that reproduces inequality, in other words, may be
inclusion more than exclusion. And while exclusion or discrimination is
illegal, inclusion or favoritism is not — meaning it can be more
insidious and largely immune to legal challenges.
Favoritism is almost universal in today’s job market. In interviews
with hundreds of people on this topic, I found that all but a handful
used the help of family and friends to find 70 percent of the jobs they
held over their lifetimes; they all used personal networks and insider
information if it was available to them.
In this context of widespread networking, the idea that there is a
job “market” based solely on skills, qualifications and merit is false.
Whenever possible, Americans seeking jobs try to avoid market
competition: they look for unequal rather than equal opportunity. In
fact, the last thing job seekers want to face is equal opportunity; they
want an advantage. They want to find ways to cut in line and get ahead.
You don’t usually need a strong social network to land a low-wage job
at a fast-food restaurant or retail store. But trying to land a coveted
position that offers a good salary and benefits is a different story.
To gain an edge, job seekers actively work connections with friends and
family members in pursuit of these opportunities.
wikipedia |Civilisation—in full, Civilisation: A Personal View by Kenneth Clark—is a television documentary series outlining the history of Western art, architecture and philosophy since the Dark Ages. The series was produced by the BBC and aired in 1969 on BBC2. Both the television scripts and the accompanying book version were written by art historianKenneth Clark (1903–1983), who also presented the series. The series is considered to be a landmark in British Television's broadcasting of the visual arts.
Civilisation was one of the first United Kingdom television documentary series made in colour, commissioned during David Attenborough's controllership of BBC2. For technical reasons, colour television was to come to BBC2 before BBC1 and, as a channel aimed at a more highbrow audience, it was appropriate to commission a major series about the arts.[3] It was Attenborough who prompted the title, but due to time constraints the series only covered Western Civilisation.
Clark did not "suppose that anyone could be so obtuse as to think I had
forgotten about the great civilisations of the pre-Christian era and
the east", though the title continued to worry him.[4]
The series won many awards and was sold to over sixty countries. The
book which accompanied the series became a best seller in both the
United Kingdom and the United States. The American sponsor Xerox paid
$450,000 for a single film compilation of the series. Clark earned a peerage on the strength of the series;[5] taking the title Baron Clark of Saltwood; he was sometimes referred to facetiously as "Lord Clark of Civilisation".
Some[who?] have criticised the series for using the title "Civilisation" when it dealt more narrowly with the civilisation in of Western Europe. In this context, the series was considered by some to be Eurocentric,[citation needed]
with African works of art acknowledged but seen as the products of
superstition, rather than rational thought, and not evidence of
civilisation. In the first episode of the series, "The Skin of Our
Teeth," Clark acknowledged the vitality of Viking art and the dynamism
of Viking society, but found that these were not enough to constitute
what he meant by 'civilisation'. In the same episode, Clark made it
clear that the series would be concerned with Western civilisation.
Furthermore the series' subtitle, "A Personal View by Kenneth Clark",
reinforced the subjectivity of the thoughts he expressed.
naturalnews | Simply
put, when nature deviates from its normal cycles, it throws food
production into chaos. A one-night drop below freezing, for example, can
wipe out the entire citrus crop in Florida. A Midwest drought recently
collapsed corn production there, and almost two years ago, a severe
drought in Texas caused a collapse in grazing grasses, resulting in a
mass slaughter of starving cows that could no longer be fed. The upshot
of that was plummeting beef prices, followed by a spike the next year as
herds had been thinned out far beyond normal.
Here's what you need to remember and weather and food prices:
Stable weather = cheap food
Radical weather = expensive food (or no food at all)
The
"latency" between the radical weather and resulting food prices is
anywhere from one month (for fresh produce) to a full year (for
processed, manufactured foods). This means that crazy weather patterns
today might not spike food prices until next year, depending on the
crops in question.
Because the weather is becoming more radical,
food prices are trending sharply higher. The USDA, which downplays food
inflation for political reasons, admits that food prices rose 3.7% in 2011, 2.6% in 2012 and are currently rising at 3% in 2013.
These
numbers are artificially low, of course, as is readily evident at the
grocery store right now. But even when kept low, they still portray an
alarming scenario when you consider these food price increases are compounded annually.
That means they pile on top of previous year's increases, causing the
resulting price spikes to rise faster than might be expected by
intuition alone.
For example, if food prices increase at just 3.5% per year, they will double every 20 years.
But the actual food inflation we seem to be experiencing when you consider the real products that people buy is closer to 6%. And at 6%, food prices double every 12 years!
Food production is extremely resource intensive
For
food prices to drop, food production inputs must fall in price at the
same time weather patterns become more predictable. This is extremely
unlikely to occur any time in the foreseeable future, especially with
fresh water, topsoil and fuel all becoming increasingly scarce and therefore more expensive.
For those who don't know, farming is extremely resource intensive,
using enormous quantities of water and fossil fuels to produce food.
For example, it takes 1,000 liters of water to make 1 liter of milk.
Similarly, it takes 15,400 liters of water to produce just 1kg of beef.
A very informative website that explains all this is:
This report shows that the "water footprint" of a typical U.S. citizen is a remarkable 2,842 cubic meters per year.
That's three quarters of a million gallons of water PER PERSON, per year.
Once
you understand this relationship, you'll understand why rainfall and
weather patterns are so crucial to the food supply. Just one inch of
rainfall on just one acre of land delivers 6.2 million cubic inches of water to the land (and whatever is growing there). That's 27,000 gallons of water per acre with just a one-inch rain.
In a drought, large pieces of land are subjected to huge water deficits
running in the billions of gallons. Under such conditions, edible
plants simply cannot grow, and even grazing animals like cows are unable
to even maintain current weight.
The
meeting is bringing together Nasa's acting chief scientist, Gale Allen,
the director of the US National Science Foundation, Cora Marett, as
well as representatives from the US Department of Homeland Security and
the Pentagon.
This is the latest indication that US officials are
increasingly concerned about the international and domestic security
implications of climate change.
Senior
scientists advising the US government at the meeting include 10 Arctic
specialists, including marine scientist Prof Carlos Duarte, director of
the Oceans Institute at the University of Western Australia.
In
early April, Duarte warned that the Arctic summer sea ice was melting at
a rate faster than predicted by conventional climate models, and could
be ice free as early as 2015
- rather than toward the end of the century, as the UN
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected in 2007. He
said:
"The Arctic situation is snowballing: dangerous
changes in the Arctic derived from accumulated anthropogenic green
house gases lead to more activities conducive to further greenhouse gas
emissions. This situation has the momentum of a runaway train."
Duarte is lead author of a paper
published last year in Nature Climate Change documenting how "tipping
elements" in the Arctic ecosystems leading to "abrupt changes" that
would dramatically impact "the global earth system" had "already started
up". Duarte and his team concluded: "We are facing the first clear
evidence of dangerous climate change."
archdruid | Patterns of thinking, like patterns of action, are most efficient when they don’t require conscious attention. Just as you can’t really become skilled at playing a musical instrument until you no longer have to consciously move every finger into position on the keys or strings, you can’t really use a way of thinking about the world until it slips below the surface of the mind and starts to structure how you experience other things. Pay attention to the way your mind works when you wake in dim light in an unfamiliar room, and the vague shapes around you take time to turn into recognizable furniture, and you’ll get a sense of the way this affects your awareness of the world; learn some cognitive skill such as plant identification, and notice the shifts in perception as foliage changes from a vague green blur to a galaxy of legible patterns, and you’ll get a sense of the same process from a different angle.
The difficulty with this otherwise helpful process comes when the unnoticed ideas you’re using to frame your experience of the world no longer tell you the things you most need to know. Wilderness tracker Tom Brown Jr. tells a story in one of his books about a group of students who were learning plant identification, and were out with Brown on a herb walk. Brown stopped them at one point along the trail, pointed to a plant, and said, “What do you see?” The students all correctly named the plant. “Get closer and take another look,” Brown said. The students did so, and confirmed that it was, in fact, the plant they’d named. After several repetitions, they were almost on top of the plant, and it wasn’t until then that the rabbit that was nibbling on the plant leaves bounded away, startling the students. They had been paying so much attention to plants that they hadn’t seen the rabbit at all.
The same thing happens in far less innocuous ways when the unnoticed ideas aren’t simply the product of a weekend workshop’s focus, but provide basic frameworks for the experiences and the thinking of an entire culture. The cognitive framing that I called the shape of time in last week’s post is a case in point. Most people, most of the time, don’t notice that all their thinking about past, present and future is shaped by some set of unnoticed assumptions about time and history. The assumptions in question usually come out of some fusion of culturally valued narratives and recent experience—not a bad idea, all things considered, unless events begin to move in ways that a fusion of culturally valued narratives and recent experience no longer explain.
It’s easiest to understand this in practice by taking an example that’s as different as possible from the common habits of thinking today; fortunately, the history of ideas has no shortage of those. The one I want to introduce here comes to us courtesy of Hesiod, one of the very first ancient Greek poets whose works still survive. He lived in the eighth century BCE in the harsh if beautiful hill country of Boeotia, halfway down the eastern side of the Greek peninsula. That we know of, he wrote two major poems, The Origin of the Gods and Works and Days, and the latter of these sketches out a vision of the shape of time that was to have a great deal of influence long after Hesiod’s day.
agrieusocial | The adoption of agriculture was one of the most momentous transformations in human history. It set into motion forces that changed our species from living in small numbers within the confines of local ecosystems into one that is now changing the biophysical characteristics of the entire planet. We argue that this transformation can be understood as a leap to ultrasociality-a type of social organization rare in nature but wildly successful when it occurs. Several species of ants and termites made a similar leap in social organization and the broad characteristics of their societies are remarkably similar to post hunter-gatherer human societies. Ultrasocial species dominate the ecosystems they occupy in terms of sheer numbers and the scale of ecosystem exploitation. We argue that the drivers for the ultrasocial transition to agriculture are economic. These societies operate as superorganisms exhibiting an unparalleled degree of division of labor and an economic organization centered around surplus production. We suggest that the origin of human and insect agriculture is an example of parallel evolution driven by similar forces of multi-level selection. Only with the evolution of expansionist agriculturalist societies did humans join ants and termites in the social domination of Earth. Viewing agriculture as an ultrasocial transition offers insights not only about the origins of agriculture and its consequences, but also about the forces shaping the current demographic transition and the modern global socio-economic system.
NYTimes | Here’s a fact that may not surprise you: the children of the rich perform better in school, on average, than children from middle-class or poor families. Students growing up in richer families have better grades and higher standardized test scores, on average, than poorer students; they also have higher rates of participation in extracurricular activities and school leadership positions, higher graduation rates and higher rates of college enrollment and completion.
Whether you think it deeply unjust, lamentable but inevitable, or obvious and unproblematic, this is hardly news. It is true in most societies and has been true in the United States for at least as long as we have thought to ask the question and had sufficient data to verify the answer.
What is news is that in the United States over the last few decades these differences in educational success between high- and lower-income students have grown substantially.
One way to see this is to look at the scores of rich and poor students on standardized math and reading tests over the last 50 years. When I did this using information from a dozen large national studies conducted between 1960 and 2010, I found that the rich-poor gap in test scores is about 40 percent larger now than it was 30 years ago.
To make this trend concrete, consider two children, one from a family with income of $165,000 and one from a family with income of $15,000. These incomes are at the 90th and 10th percentiles of the income distribution nationally, meaning that 10 percent of children today grow up in families with incomes below $15,000 and 10 percent grow up in families with incomes above $165,000.
In the 1980s, on an 800-point SAT-type test scale, the average difference in test scores between two such children would have been about 90 points; today it is 125 points. This is almost twice as large as the 70-point test score gap between white and black children. Family income is now a better predictor of children’s success in school than race.
brookings | Many scholars have argued that once “basic needs” have been met, higher income is no longer associated with higher in subjective well-being. We assess the validity of this claim in comparisons of both rich and poor countries, and also of rich and poor people within a country. Analyzing multiple datasets, multiple definitions of “basic needs” and multiple questions about well-being, we find no support for this claim. The relationship between well-being and income is roughly linear-log and does not diminish as incomes rise. If there is a satiation point, we are yet to reach it.
In 1974 Richard Easterlin famously posited that increasing average income did not raise average well-being, a claim that became known as the Easterlin Paradox. However, in recent years new and more comprehensive data has allowed for greater testing of Easterlin’s claim. Studies by us and others have pointed to a robust positive relationship between well-being and income across countries and over time (Deaton, 2008; Stevenson and Wolfers, 2008; Sacks, Stevenson, and Wolfers, 2013). Yet, some researchers have argued for a modified version of Easterlin’s hypothesis, acknowledging the existence of a link between income and well-being among those whose basic needs have not been met, but claiming that beyond a certain income threshold, further income is unrelated to well-being.
The existence of such a satiation point is claimed widely, although there has been no formal statistical evidence presented to support this view. For example Diener and Seligman (2004, p. 5) state that “there are only small increases in well-being” above some threshold. While Clark, Frijters and Shields (2008, p. 123) state more starkly that “greater economic prosperity at some point ceases to buy more happiness,” a similar claim is made by Di Tella and MacCulloch (2008, p. 17): “once basic needs have been satisfied, there is full adaptation to further economic growth.” The income level beyond which further income no longer yields greater well-being is typically said to be somewhere between $8,000 and $25,000. Layard (2003, p. 17) argues that “once a country has over $15,000 per head, its level of happiness appears to be independent of its income;” while in subsequent work he argued for a $20,000 threshold (Layard, 2005 p. 32-33). Frey and Stutzer (2002, p. 416) claim that “income provides happiness at low levels of development but once a threshold (around $10,000) is reached, the average income level in a country has little effect on average subjective well-being.”
Many of these claims, of a critical level of GDP beyond which happiness and GDP are no longer linked, come from cursorily examining plots of well-being against the level of per capita GDP. Such graphs show clearly that increasing income yields diminishing marginal gains in subjective well-being. However this relationship need not reach a point of nirvana beyond which further gains in well-being are absent. For instance Deaton (2008) and Stevenson and Wolfers (2008) find that the well-being–income relationship is roughly a linear-log relationship, such that, while each additional dollar of income yields a greater increment to measured happiness for the poor than for the rich, there is no satiation point.
NYTimes | A crucial question in the debate over income and wealth inequality is
whether its growth necessarily leads to a growth in the inequality of
political power. If it does, then this is a powerful reason for the
federal government to take active measures to reduce income and wealth
inequality — even if it comes at an economic cost to the nation.
Conservatives and libertarians generally do not believe that
increased inequality is a political or economic problem. To a large
extent, I think that is because they fear that acknowledging the problem
would require the adoption of policies they find distasteful, immoral
and economically counterproductive.
That is, income and wealth would have to be redistributed — taken via
taxation from the wealthy and given to the poor. The higher taxes will
reduce the incentive to work, save and invest among the wealthy,
conservatives and libertarians believe, which will reduce economic
growth and lead to the expatriation of the wealthy from the United
States, while fostering a culture of dependency among the poor that will
reduce their incentive to better themselves and escape poverty.
Insofar as the political dynamics are concerned, conservatives and
libertarians are generally fearful of democracy. That is because, in
principle, there is essentially no constraint on the ability of the
majority to take from the minority and reward themselves in a pure
democracy. The founding fathers very much shared this concern and
intentionally enacted numerous restraints on the majority to protect the
rights of the minority to their wealth. Among these are the federal
system, with relatively strong states and a weak national legislature,
as compared to parliamentary systems, and a Senate where small, sparsely
populated states, per capita, have more influence than large, populous
states; a written constitution with strong protection for property
rights; and an Electoral College instead of election of the president by
pure popular vote.
One reason that conservatives and libertarians obsess over the large
percentage of the population that pays no federal income taxes, often
put at 47 percent,
is the political concern that the nation is very close to a tipping
point where the have-nots can take from the haves almost at will.
Rejuvenation Pills
-
No one likes getting old. Everyone would like to be immorbid. Let's be
careful here. Immortal doesnt include youth or return to youth. Immorbid
means you s...
Death of the Author — at the Hands of Cthulhu
-
In 1967, French literary theorist and philosopher Roland Barthes wrote of
“The Death of the Author,” arguing that the meaning of a text is divorced
from au...
9/29 again
-
"On this sacred day of Michaelmas, former President Donald Trump invoked
the heavenly power of St. Michael the Archangel, sharing a powerful prayer
for pro...
Return of the Magi
-
Lately, the Holy Spirit is in the air. Emotional energy is swirling out of
the earth.I can feel it bubbling up, effervescing and evaporating around
us, s...
New Travels
-
Haven’t published on the Blog in quite a while. I at least part have been
immersed in the area of writing books. My focus is on Science Fiction an
Historic...
Covid-19 Preys Upon The Elderly And The Obese
-
sciencemag | This spring, after days of flulike symptoms and fever, a man
arrived at the emergency room at the University of Vermont Medical Center.
He ...