AuthorTopic: Knarf's Knewz Channel  (Read 1413539 times)

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17439
    • View Profile
Re: The Southern Poverty ‘anti-hate’ racket
« Reply #12150 on: March 20, 2019, 05:51:17 AM »
The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated itself an organization hostile to women and people of color.

It fired its co-founder Morris Dees for unexplained reasons and removed his bio from its Web site at the same time it pledged to train its management in “racial equity, ­inclusion and results.”

Simultaneous with the cashiering of Dees after nearly 50 years at the SPLC, roughly two dozen ­employees wrote a letter warning that “allegations of mistreatment, sexual harassment, gender discrimination and racism threaten the moral authority of this organization and our integrity along with it.”

The missive is touching in its ­assumption that the SPLC still has moral authority or integrity. The scandal is, nonetheless, a remarkable comeuppance for an organization that has weaponized political correctness for its own money-grubbing.

Over the decades, the SPLC basically made the American philosopher Eric Hoffer’s famous line about organizational degeneracy its strategic plan: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business and eventually degenerates into a racket.”

Originally founded as a civil-rights group in 1971 and gaining fame for its campaign to bankrupt the Ku Klux Klan, the SPLC shifted to a catch-all “anti-hate” group that widened its definition of bigotry to encompass more and more people as the Klan faded as a threat.

It used the complicity or credulousness of the media in repeating its designations to punish its ideological enemies and engage in prodigious fundraising. It raised $50 million a year and built an endowment of more than $300 million.

Imagine a left-wing outfit with the same shoddy standards as Sen. Joe McCarthy but with a better business sense.

Clear-eyed, fair-minded people on the left have long recognized the SPLC as a fundraising tool masquerading as a civil-rights group, but its absurd overreach has in recent years earned skeptical coverage from the likes of The ­Atlantic and PBS.

The SPLC never sees honest disagreement over contentious issues if it can see “hate” instead. It named the Family Research Council and the Alliance Defending Freedom hate groups for opposing gay marriage. It designated perfectly respectable restrictionist ­immigration groups like the Center for Immigration Studies for the offense of favoring less immigration. It labeled the American ­Enterprise Institute scholar Christina Hoff Sommers as complicit in “male supremacy.”

The SPLC pretends not to be able to tell the difference between Charles Murray, one of the country’s foremost intellectuals, and the likes of the white nationalists who marched on Charlottesville.

Usually, being named by the SPLC means having the designation routinely noted by the press, whatever its merits, but occasionally there’s recourse.

True to form, the SPLC somehow deemed Maajid Nawaz and his Quilliam Foundation — devoted to pushing back against radical Islam — anti-Muslim, even though Nawaz is himself a Muslim. He sued for defamation.

The SPLC steadily climbed down. First, it withdrew the “Field Guide to Anti-Muslim Extremists” that included him, then settled for $3.375 million. “We would like,” the SPLC said, “to extend our sincerest apologies to Mr. Nawaz, Quilliam, and our readers for the error.”

The error? This makes it sound like the SPLC misspelled his name rather than going out of its way to include him in a research report meant to put a blot on his reputation forevermore.

There’s a lot of talk of the need for more civility in our public life. Any journalist who believes this should shun the SPLC. Its business model is based on an elaborate form of name-calling. It lumps ­together people who have legitimate, good-faith opinions the SPLC finds uncongenial with hideous racists, using revulsion with the latter to discredit the former. This is a poisonous form of public argument.

Not to mention that many of the groups the SPLC smears have never had their employees complain about a hostile workplace culture. If the SPLC is going to engage in a period of self-reflection, it should think about what it’s become — and recoil in shame.

https://nypost.com/2019/03/19/the-southern-poverty-anti-hate-racket/

Careful there, buddy. This is not the Diner party line, even though it's true.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Re: Knarf's Knewz Channel
« Reply #12151 on: March 20, 2019, 06:28:19 AM »
LOL!  :emthup:
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Trump's Lies Exposed by Former Mexican President Vicente Fox
« Reply #12152 on: March 20, 2019, 06:30:05 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/fgH8Vmbn4Sw&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/fgH8Vmbn4Sw&fs=1</a>
« Last Edit: March 20, 2019, 06:33:16 AM by knarf »
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Midwest flooding pictures - this week
« Reply #12153 on: March 20, 2019, 08:48:35 AM »
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Extinction Rebellion's Newsletter #16 – Beware the Ides of Earth March
« Reply #12154 on: March 20, 2019, 12:44:03 PM »


Welcome to the 16th Extinction Rebellion Newsletter!

This week saw an incredible turnout from the Youth Strike movement, with strikes in over 130 countries! In the UK, strikers received support from the newly-established XR Youth, who threw an afterparty on Westminster Bridge.

Speaking of celebration, this weekend also saw an amazing Spring Uprising event in Bristol.

And at the same time, Earth Marchers in Wales made their first steps on their journey to join in London’s International Rebellion.

Wherever you’re coming from, if you’re joining the International Rebellion you might want to read the new briefing/guide which contains all the latest details. And in case you missed it last week, check out our legal briefing (pdf) – a must-read for anyone considering risking arrest.

Before April 15, there’s plenty else to keep us busy. On the 30th of March we’ll be blockading Dover – there’s also a brand new briefing (pdf) for this action. Shortly after that, we’ll be painting the streets; due to a technical hitch we’ve had to make a new Facebook event where the old one had many hundreds of attendees – so please share this one far and wide to let people know it’s still happening!

And the rebellion will be global: this weekend will see large-scale declarations of rebellion in both France and Australia. We at XR UK wish our fellow rebels abroad the best of luck, and we can’t wait to come together with one voice on April the 15th!

Wherever you are in the world, if you’re looking to take action right now, then look no further: as part of a campaign to get the world of culture telling the truth about our emergency, XR is encouraging anyone to take part in the Letters to the Earth campaign (more details in Announcements).

On top of this, our BBC Campaign group is looking for as many people as possible to submit questions through this easily-accessible form – let’s show the BBC how much appetite there is for truthful climate coverage!

We’ll be bringing easily-accessible actions like the above to your attention every week – but we hope these are seen as part of a deeper, population-wide effort to save our children’s future. If you’d like to get more directly involved with XR, please check out our volunteers page. To help out in your area, get in touch with your nearest XR group. If you can’t spare time, but can donate money instead, please see our fundraiser page.

Check out what’s on near you with our full list of upcoming events, available to view on our website rebellion.earth/events. Or create your own event by filling in our talks and trainings form. If you’re new, or haven’t already seen it, remember to check out our Campaign Overview Document.


Contents

    Recent Activity
    Upcoming Activity
    International Highlights
    Announcements
    Extreme Weather
    Latest News and Data
    Recommended Content
    Good News Stories

Very long this time.

https://xrblog.org/2019/03/20/newsletter-16-respect-existence-or-expect-resistance/?link_id=0&can_id=d4e96a888a65b26abfffc48652b2e679&source=email-newsletter-16-beware-the-ides-of-earth-march&email_referrer=email_515028&email_subject=newsletter-16-nil-beware-the-ides-of-earth-march
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
New Study Confirms--Eggs Are A Stroke In A Shell
« Reply #12155 on: March 20, 2019, 03:28:01 PM »
For years animal agriculture apologists have tried to convince the public that "inflammation, not cholesterol, is the cause of chronic disease." Eat all the eggs, meat and milk you want, they cajole: you won't die from a stroke or heart attack at age 50. We promise.

This week a JAMA study reverses the industry-friendly hype, at least until the industry shills resume their spin. Each added 300 milligrams a day of cholesterol represented a 17 percent increase in risk of cardiovascular disease and 18 percent increased risk of all-cause premature death, concludes the study.

This is far from the first time eggs have been definitively linked to disease and death. In 2008, the American Heart Association's journal Circulation reported that just one egg a day increased the risk of heart failure in a group of doctors studied. And in 2010, the Canadian Journal of Cardiology lamented the, "widespread misconception"that consumption of dietary cholesterol and egg yolks is harmless," cautioning that, "Stopping the consumption of egg yolks after a stroke or myocardial infarction would be like quitting smoking after a diagnosis of lung cancer: a necessary action, but late."

Eating eggs is also "positively associated" with the risk of diabetes say the journals Nutrition and Diabetes Care and with the risk of ovarian cancer says Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention. "Thus, it seems possible that eating eggs regularly is causally linked to the occurrence of a proportion of cancers of the ovary, perhaps as many as 40%, among women who eat at least 1 egg a week," reported Cancer Epidemiology, citing a study of Seventh Day Adventists, who eat no meat, and the Iowa Women's Health Study which showed threefold and twofold increases in the cancer, respectively.

Egg operations--30,000 caged hens stacked on top of each other over their own manure in a windowless, unventilated barn--also invite germs and therefore rely on antibiotics. A few years ago, the FDA reported it found a hatchery injecting antibiotics directly into eggs of laying hens presumably to take the offensive with germ control. But wouldn't the eggs the antibiotic-treated hens then lay have antibiotic residues? Yes, reported the Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry in 2000; some residues remain.

Antibiotics are so basic to animal-based agriculture, reps from the egg and other industries as well as Big Pharma stormed Capitol Hill in 2009 when the FDA threatened to limit them. And, despite new antibiotic regulations from the FDA in 2013 and more recently, antibiotic use on megafarms is actually going up not down.

There are ethical reasons to reject eggs too. For example, "cage-free," "humanely raised" labels mean nothing since male chicks are ground up alive at the hatchery long before the females get to the "humane farm."

"Chick culling is the process of killing newly hatched poultry for which the industry has no use. It occurs in all industrialised egg production whether free range, organic, or battery cageincluding that of the UK and US," says Wikipedia. "Many methods of culling...include cervical dislocation, asphyxiation by carbon dioxide and maceration using a high speed grinder." Grinding the males up alive while they are fully conscious, called maceration, is the primary method in the United States. Videos of the killing, which produces a "slurry" that becomes dog feed, are widely available on the Internet. The egg industry does not deny the killings.

With their health risks and cruelty why aren't eggs tarred like cigarettes? Because of counter-information disseminated by the egg industry. For example, an egg industry sponsored supplement in Canadian Family Physician actually wrote "consumption of up to seven eggs per week is congruent with a healthy diet," and questions the cholesterol/cardiovascular disease link that the current JAMA research confirms. Why believe scientific research when you can believe the egg industry?

https://www.opednews.com/articles/New-Study-Confirms-Eggs-A-by-Martha-Rosenberg-Agriculture_Cholesterol_Consumption_Eggs-190320-564.html
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Come on, UK weather forecasters – tell it like it is on climate change
« Reply #12156 on: March 20, 2019, 03:48:11 PM »
People have a right to know what’s behind their flooding or heatwave. The UK is lagging behind other countries


‘It is now possible to say with confidence how much more likely (or how much more intense) a storm was made by climate change.’ Rescue workers helping residents to safety in Carlisle after Storm Desmond in 2016.

They have a national reach that most climate campaigners would die for. They are familiar and respected experts on the science of meteorology. And they have prime-time slots at the end of almost every TV news bulletin, morning, noon and night. But the weather forecasters who guide everything from our clothing choices to our weekend plans seldom – if ever – mention the issue that is increasingly shaping our beloved British weather: climate change.

This week, former BBC weatherman Bill Giles broke cover, and called for the BBC and other major broadcasters to overhaul their approach to forecasts, and add in information about the crucial context of climate change to their predictions about the daily weather.

While the weather can’t always straightforwardly be equated with a changing climate, the impacts of climate change are no longer a hypothetical concern, or a discussion for the future. Climate change is with us now, and is manifesting through rising temperatures, more violent and unpredictable storms, and heavier rainfall.

What Giles rightly highlighted is that while weather forecasting continues to operate in a vacuum while the climate changes around us, it is abdicating its duty to provide accurate, scientifically-grounded meteorological advice to the public. Don’t people have a right to know how their climate is changing? And aren’t weather forecasts the obvious place to alert us to these new risks that we face?

In fact, the UK is lagging far behind many other countries in terms of integrating what we know about climate change with the information provided to the public about the weather. In the notoriously polarised US, a brilliant programme led by George Mason University in Virginia and Climate Central has supported more than 600 TV meteorologists to contextualise their weather forecasts with information about the changing climate.

Similar successes have been seen in Australia, where a programme run out of Monash University provides localised climate information in their weather segments. In Belgium, the weather forecaster Jill Peters has made a career from campaigning on climate change. So the silence from British broadcasters is troubling, and Giles’s intervention is long overdue.

In a sense, the broadcasters’ nervousness is understandable – for a long time, it simply wasn’t possible to make definitive statements about the relationship between weather and climate. Communicators were faced with a catch-22 situation: make speculative statements about extreme weather and climate change, or sit on their hands while the very changes scientists had been predicting for decades materialised around them.

But the science of ‘‘attributing’’ weather events to climate change has accelerated rapidly. It is now possible to say with confidence how much more likely (or how much more intense) a storm, or a heatwave, was made by climate change. Statements about the links between weather and climate still need to be made carefully, and in line with the science. But this kind of probabilistic, risk-based guidance is the bread and butter of TV weather forecasters, and they’re the perfect people to give audiences an insight into how the climate is changing.

None of this means that accurate information about the risks of climate change is a panacea for public engagement on climate change. Its now well understood (and more than ever in thisera of “fake news”) that accurate evidence alone is unlikely to move the dial for people who don’t want to hear it. And simply hammering people with information about the risks of climate change could be counterproductive.

The social science of climate communication points to the importance of striking a motivating balance between hope and fear in public messages. In practice, this means not only raising the alarm about the often terrifying consequences of a changing climate, but also providing advice and support on what people can do to save more energy, waste less food, or lobby their MP to prioritise climate change.

Clearly, our humble weather forecasters can’t do this all on their own. But the inspiring rise of the school strike movement is proof of the frustration and urgency with which young people view the issue that will define their lives, and suggests the era of side lining climate change as something that environmentalists worry about, while the rest of us get on with our lives, may finally be coming to an end.

From the way we eat, travel and heat our homes, to the conventions that govern our weather forecasts, climate change needs to move from the margins and into the mainstream – and fast. A daily public narrative that joins the dots between the weather patterns we see outside our windows, and the unprecedented changes now under way in the global climate, is one crucial piece of this puzzle.

• Adam Corner is the research director at Climate Outreach and an honorary research fellow in the School of Psychology, Cardiff University

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/20/come-on-uk-weather-forecasters-tell-it-like-it-is-on-climate-change

HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline Eddie

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 17439
    • View Profile
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12157 on: March 20, 2019, 06:18:00 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WiuOtfHij8Q&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WiuOtfHij8Q&fs=1</a>

Funny and no doubt a popular show....but the "proof" is the typical kind of proof I always see.....it doesn't really stand up to real scrutiny. Sorry, but it's mostly crap that just reinforces the belief system of the average liberal leaning American. We could take it a line at time and I could show you just how many false assumptions went into the making of this video, but there's no point. It wouldn't change anyone's mind.
What makes the desert beautiful is that somewhere it hides a well.

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12158 on: March 20, 2019, 10:42:55 PM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WiuOtfHij8Q&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WiuOtfHij8Q&fs=1</a>

Funny and no doubt a popular show....but the "proof" is the typical kind of proof I always see.....it doesn't really stand up to real scrutiny. Sorry, but it's mostly crap that just reinforces the belief system of the average liberal leaning American. We could take it a line at time and I could show you just how many false assumptions went into the making of this video, but there's no point. It wouldn't change anyone's mind.

  The only way to know which statistics are "true" ( which probably they all are ) in either case, would be to fact check them all. I think the Dems and Rebups receive a lot of money from corps that influence our lawmakers to come up with grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest. It goes both ways.
  An ironic thing about this is that, who would want to "Make it" in a system that is corrupt and destructive?
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15463
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12159 on: March 21, 2019, 01:15:49 AM »
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/WiuOtfHij8Q&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/WiuOtfHij8Q&fs=1</a>

Funny and no doubt a popular show....but the "proof" is the typical kind of proof I always see.....it doesn't really stand up to real scrutiny. Sorry, but it's mostly crap that just reinforces the belief system of the average liberal leaning American. We could take it a line at time and I could show you just how many false assumptions went into the making of this video, but there's no point. It wouldn't change anyone's mind.

The only thing I agree with is your last sentence: "It wouldn't change anyone's mind."

If you were being honest, you would be obliged to define what you say are "false assumptions" and indeed take it "a line at a time." This is the sort of self-justified and airy dismissal we generally get from conservatives who just don't want to hear it: "Liberal" beliefs are "crap." Scientific studies are false assumptions. You look at the video, and its is laden with specific citations from specific sources. Any honest criticism would have to be at least as specific in its refutation, otherwise it's just a blanket dismissal.

And I, for one, find Lee Camp pretty much unlistenable.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15463
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12160 on: March 21, 2019, 02:24:05 AM »
The only way to know which statistics are "true" ( which probably they all are ) in either case, would be to fact check them all. I think the Dems and Rebups receive a lot of money from corps that influence our lawmakers to come up with grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest. It goes both ways.

While both major political parties receive torrents of money from parties interested in being first at the trough to pick winners, I'd like to see some evidence that political parties are "grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest." Corporations and private interests? Sure. They are always interested in waving a self-serving study in the air to prove a point. (See the recent article RE posted in re Bayer/Monsanto.) Monsanto spent years cherry picking some studies and suppressing others.

What is certain is that the culture of academe and its "publish or perish" ethos insures that the world is full of studies. Some have merit, and some don't. For a peek check out the SSRN website: https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/

It's not limited to social sciences, but encompasses a number of disciplines. And papers from adjuncts on the make for tenure. Very interesting, and certainly many are arguable; but it's evidence.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline Ashvin

  • Contrarian
  • Sous Chef
  • *
  • Posts: 2644
    • View Profile
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12161 on: March 21, 2019, 02:58:41 AM »
The only way to know which statistics are "true" ( which probably they all are ) in either case, would be to fact check them all. I think the Dems and Rebups receive a lot of money from corps that influence our lawmakers to come up with grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest. It goes both ways.

While both major political parties receive torrents of money from parties interested in being first at the trough to pick winners, I'd like to see some evidence that political parties are "grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest." Corporations and private interests? Sure. They are always interested in waving a self-serving study in the air to prove a point. (See the recent article RE posted in re Bayer/Monsanto.) Monsanto spent years cherry picking some studies and suppressing others.

What is certain is that the culture of academe and its "publish or perish" ethos insures that the world is full of studies. Some have merit, and some don't. For a peek check out the SSRN website: https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/

It's not limited to social sciences, but encompasses a number of disciplines. And papers from adjuncts on the make for tenure. Very interesting, and certainly many are arguable; but it's evidence.

The hoax perpetrated by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose is very informative on this topic:

https://nypost.com/2018/10/08/an-academic-hoax-to-expose-a-massive-academic-scam/
Much of academia has risen up in arms over an audacious year-long hoax perpetrated by three scholars who wrote 20 phony papers in various fields of gender and identity studies that used “politically fashionable” language to support blatantly outlandish conclusions.

And it worked: Seven of the papers got accepted for publication before the hoax’s exposure last week, and seven more are still in the peer-review process. Only six were rejected outright. Which means the howls condemning the hoax are outrageously misdirected.

To a non-academic, the papers seem ridiculous on their face. But not to the BS-detectors in these niche fields of “scholarship.”

 One paper argued that men who masturbate while thinking about a woman without her consent are committing sexual violence.

 A second denounced “Western astronomy” as sexist and imperialist and argued instead for the study of “feminist astronomy” — or interpretive dance.

 Another delved into human reactions to “rape culture and queer performativity at urban dog parks in Portland, Ore.” The author even “confessed” her own human “limitations in being able to determine when an incidence of dog humping qualifies as rape.”

 Finally, one paper rewrote 3,000 words of “Mein Kampf” in radical-feminist-speak.

Again, these papers went through “rigorous” peer review in significant journals and 14 were headed for publication. That would qualify an author for tenure at any university.

The point wasn’t to expose academia in general, but rather politically trendy fields that, as Harvard’s Yascha Mounk suggests, “cannot differentiate between real scholarship and noxious bloviating.”

In short, it exposed the academic equivalent of Fake News and its lucrative professional infrastructure. But don’t expect any change: Facing the facts would kill the golden goose.

The Atlantic has a more detailed analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/
« Last Edit: March 21, 2019, 03:02:23 AM by Ashvin »

Offline Surly1

  • Administrator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 15463
    • View Profile
    • Doomstead Diner
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12162 on: March 21, 2019, 04:05:02 AM »
The only way to know which statistics are "true" ( which probably they all are ) in either case, would be to fact check them all. I think the Dems and Rebups receive a lot of money from corps that influence our lawmakers to come up with grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest. It goes both ways.

While both major political parties receive torrents of money from parties interested in being first at the trough to pick winners, I'd like to see some evidence that political parties are "grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest." Corporations and private interests? Sure. They are always interested in waving a self-serving study in the air to prove a point. (See the recent article RE posted in re Bayer/Monsanto.) Monsanto spent years cherry picking some studies and suppressing others.

What is certain is that the culture of academe and its "publish or perish" ethos insures that the world is full of studies. Some have merit, and some don't. For a peek check out the SSRN website: https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/

It's not limited to social sciences, but encompasses a number of disciplines. And papers from adjuncts on the make for tenure. Very interesting, and certainly many are arguable; but it's evidence.

The hoax perpetrated by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose is very informative on this topic:

//
The point wasn’t to expose academia in general, but rather politically trendy fields that, as Harvard’s Yascha Mounk suggests, “cannot differentiate between real scholarship and noxious bloviating.”

In short, it exposed the academic equivalent of Fake News and its lucrative professional infrastructure. But don’t expect any change: Facing the facts would kill the golden goose.

The Atlantic has a more detailed analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

So what are we to make of this? Even in reading the Atlantic article, I am not sure I understand the motivations of the authors. By writing garbage and discrediting the academic journals, they have handed some of the worst people on the planet as loaded weapon. Swell.

The Atlantic article get is correct:

"Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines."

I must say that I really enjoyed the title of one article: “Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation.” Are editors no longer capable of saying, "You're shitting me, right?"

If your post is a single selected instance of attempting to discredit academic research, the you've made it clear you are joining coordinated attack from the right on academe and objective truth. If your post is to say you can't believe everything you read, that's a different story.

I read this on the internet, so it must be true.
"It is difficult to write a paradiso when all the superficial indications are that you ought to write an apocalypse." -Ezra Pound

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
Re: Redacted Tonight: Systemic Racism is a myth
« Reply #12163 on: March 21, 2019, 04:28:28 AM »
The only way to know which statistics are "true" ( which probably they all are ) in either case, would be to fact check them all. I think the Dems and Rebups receive a lot of money from corps that influence our lawmakers to come up with grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest. It goes both ways.

While both major political parties receive torrents of money from parties interested in being first at the trough to pick winners, I'd like to see some evidence that political parties are "grants for University studies to get the kind of statistics that further there self-interest." Corporations and private interests? Sure. They are always interested in waving a self-serving study in the air to prove a point. (See the recent article RE posted in re Bayer/Monsanto.) Monsanto spent years cherry picking some studies and suppressing others.

What is certain is that the culture of academe and its "publish or perish" ethos insures that the world is full of studies. Some have merit, and some don't. For a peek check out the SSRN website: https://www.ssrn.com/index.cfm/en/

It's not limited to social sciences, but encompasses a number of disciplines. And papers from adjuncts on the make for tenure. Very interesting, and certainly many are arguable; but it's evidence.

The hoax perpetrated by Peter Boghossian, James Lindsay and Helen Pluckrose is very informative on this topic:

//
The point wasn’t to expose academia in general, but rather politically trendy fields that, as Harvard’s Yascha Mounk suggests, “cannot differentiate between real scholarship and noxious bloviating.”

In short, it exposed the academic equivalent of Fake News and its lucrative professional infrastructure. But don’t expect any change: Facing the facts would kill the golden goose.

The Atlantic has a more detailed analysis - https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2018/10/new-sokal-hoax/572212/

So what are we to make of this? Even in reading the Atlantic article, I am not sure I understand the motivations of the authors. By writing garbage and discrediting the academic journals, they have handed some of the worst people on the planet as loaded weapon. Swell.

The Atlantic article get is correct:

"Sokal Squared is already being used as ammunition in the great American culture war. Many conservatives who are deeply hostile to the science of climate change, and who dismiss out of hand the studies that attest to deep injustices in our society, are using Sokol Squared to smear all academics as biased culture warriors. The Federalist, a right-wing news and commentary site, went so far as to spread the apparent ideological bias of a few journals in one particular corner of academia to most professors, the mainstream media, and Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

"These attacks are empirically incorrect and intellectually dishonest. There are many fields of academia that have absolutely no patience for nonsense. While the hoaxers did manage to place articles in some of the most influential academic journals in the cluster of fields that focus on dealing with issues of race, gender, and identity, they have not penetrated the leading journals of more traditional disciplines."

I must say that I really enjoyed the title of one article: “Rubbing One Out: Defining Metasexual Violence of Objectification Through Nonconsensual Masturbation.” Are editors no longer capable of saying, "You're shitting me, right?"

If your post is a single selected instance of attempting to discredit academic research, the you've made it clear you are joining coordinated attack from the right on academe and objective truth. If your post is to say you can't believe everything you read, that's a different story.

I read this on the internet, so it must be true.

Like reading Alex Jones "Prison Planet", or hop over to Breitbart, not to forget Rush Limbaugh, or the other 10,000 political "false news" right wing websites.  I am not saying that all conservative web sites are like that, but some are extremist and really stretch a "truth". How much false information is "accepted" by the readers of this "false news".
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com

Offline knarf

  • Global Moderator
  • Master Chef
  • *****
  • Posts: 11397
    • View Profile
A growing list of companies from FedEx BMW are warning about the world economy
« Reply #12164 on: March 21, 2019, 04:36:17 AM »
Corporate giants doing business abroad are painting a dreary picture of the world’s economy.

With an ongoing trade war between the U.S. and China, Brexit uncertainty weighing on Europe and the U.K., and new weakness out of Japan, some business leaders say it’s harder than ever to rake in profits.

This week, top executives at FedEx, BMW, UBS and others described bleak global business conditions while discussing quarterly results. Fitch Ratings also “aggressively” cut its forecast for the year.

The head of UBS was among the latest to blame the world’s backdrop for weaker-than-expected results. CEO Ermotti told a conference in London on Wednesday that it “one of the worst first-quarter environments in recent history,” Reuters reported. The Swiss bank slashed another $300 million from 2019 costs after revenue at its investment bank plunged. Investment banking conditions are among the toughest seen in years, especially outside the U.S., he said.

Ermotti’s remarks echo the sentiment from FedEx a day earlier. The multinational package delivery service reported sluggish international revenue on Tuesday as a result of tough exchange rates and ongoing trade battles.

“Slowing international macroeconomic conditions and weaker global trade growth trends continue, as seen in the year-over-year decline in our FedEx Express international revenue,” Chief Financial Officer Alan B. Graf Jr. said in FedEx’s quarterly earnings report.

BMW is another with a less-than-rosy outlook. The German automaker said it expected pretax profit to fall by more than 10 percent in 2019, and its CFO said global conditions make it hard to provide a clear forecast.

“Depending on how conditions develop, our guidance may be subject to additional risks; in particular, the risk of a no-deal Brexit and ongoing developments in international trade policy,” CFO Nicolas Peter said in BMW’s quarterly earnings report Wednesday.


Bayerische Motoren Werke AG (BMW) vehicles, assembled in the U.S., sit parked before being driven onto vehicle carrier ships at the Port of Charleston in Charleston, South Carolina.

Samsung also joined in on Wednesday. The electronics company is forecasting a tough 2019 due to slowing economic growth, global trade tensions and softer demand for memory chips from data center companies, the firm’s co-chief executive said Wednesday.

“We are expecting many difficulties this year such as slowing growth in major economies and risks over global trade conflicts,” Samsung Co-Chief Executive Kinam Kim said.

It’s not just these big names — all companies in the S&P that generate more than half of their sales overseas are expected to see an earnings decline of 11.2 percent in the first quarter of 2019, according to FactSet.
Global jitters

Fitch Ratings also “quite aggressively cut” its 2019 global forecast this week. But the firm’s economics team stopped short of calling a global recession.

“Global growth prospects have deteriorated significantly since Fitch Ratings’ last Global Economic Outlook (GEO) in December 2018,” the agency said in a report published Wednesday. “We do not see the onset of a global recession.”

Fitch dropped its global growth forecasts for 2019 to 2.8 percent from 3.1 percent. For 2020, it dropped from 2.8 percent from 2.9 percent. The euro zone growth outlook weakened “particularly sharply,” Fitch said. It also highlighted a slowdown in China, and deceleration in emerging markets led by Turkey and Argentina in the aftermath of last summer’s currency crises.

“This has occurred against the backdrop of world trade growth weakening steadily through 2018,” Fitch said. “The US-China trade war may have suppressed and distorted trade flows, but more fundamentally, weaker EM domestic demand has been a key contributor to the trade slowdown.”

Washington and Beijing are locked in a stalemate on tariffs. In the past year, the world’s two biggest economies have slapped billions of dollars’ worth of tariffs on each other’s goods. The tensions have taken a toll on global financial markets and kept investor sentiment in check.

There were multiple reports this week about progress on negotiations.

On Wednesday, President Donald Trump said U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods could stay on “for a substantial period of time,” but he added that the talks were  “coming along nicely.”

Earlier, Bloomberg reported that some U.S. officials fear China is reneging on certain trade concessions. The Wall Street Journal reported that U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin plan to travel to Beijing next week for another round of negotiations with their Chinese trade counterparts.

Then there’s Brexit. The ongoing confusion and uncertainty around the U.K.’s departure from the European bloc is hanging over global markets. Some fear the U.K. would default to World Trade Organization rules, which would mean heavy import and export tariffs and possible delays to goods at the border.

In January, the CEO of Adidas called Brexit the “biggest concern” for the company for its potential ripple effect on the European economy. Europe is about 30 percent of the German sportswear maker’s business.

Japan added to the heap of worries this week. For the first time in three years, the Japanese government downgraded its assessment of the economy, blaming the U.S.-China trade war for slumping exports and industrial output.

Despite uncertainty, some luxury retailers seem to be holding up. Hermes, known for its $10,000 Birkin handbags, said Wednesday it sees no change in its positive sales trend and was helped by strong demand from clients in Asia. Hermes posted a 15 percent rise in net profit last year to $1.6 billion.

If a string of weak sentiment numbers and data continues, Bryn Mawr Trust Chief Investment Officer Ernie Cecilia told CNBC companies could trim spending and scale back hiring.

“It certainly is an issue. I think in many ways the first quarter is a possible air pocket or a slowdown,” Cecilia said. “If it’s deeper and more pervasive, then it would be a concern for employment, it would be a concern for wages, it would be a concern for earnings and it would be a concern for the market.”

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/03/20/worried-about-the-global-economy-so-are-top-executives.html?recirc=taboolainternal
HUMANS ARE STILL EVOLVING! Our communities blog is at https://openmind693.wordpress.com