Headline of the day: "Gates Calls Europe Anti-war Mood Dangerous to Peace"
I also just realized how much I hate the NYTimes' style re: caps.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Too much to study to have time to study
Today started well. I got up at 1:30, which I don't feel bad about since I worked until 4am and went to bed at 5:17. I did a little stretching, had a quiet breakfast of grapefruit, OJ and green/white fusion tea, and sat down at my computer just to do a brief e-mail and news check.
News checks are never brief.
Did you know crickets are able to pass information about predators to their young in utero?
But this is the article that got to me. It's about global climate change, and the small cost of curbing it. One study says $80 per metric ton of CO2 would do the trick; the author suggests $300 in light of recent pessimistic news. An increase of $2.60 per gallon of gas.
But we won't have it. Who cares that we're definitely on track for disastrous temperature increase this century, and that there's a 10% chance of a catastrophic 12-degree increase? That's cool, as long as I get to drive cheap.
Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert is quoted in the article:
“Global warming is bad, but it doesn’t make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don’t feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning.”
“Moral emotions are the brain’s call to action. If climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.”
My favorite part of the article, though, is the end, where the author is responding to Dumbass Senator James Inhofe and others who would deny the existence of human-caused climate change or point to the fact that there's "only" a 10 percent chance that we're going to hit "We're All Going to Die" on the Global Warming Scale in the next century:
In a somewhat related matter, watch this and all other performances by George Watsky:
News checks are never brief.
Did you know crickets are able to pass information about predators to their young in utero?
But this is the article that got to me. It's about global climate change, and the small cost of curbing it. One study says $80 per metric ton of CO2 would do the trick; the author suggests $300 in light of recent pessimistic news. An increase of $2.60 per gallon of gas.
But we won't have it. Who cares that we're definitely on track for disastrous temperature increase this century, and that there's a 10% chance of a catastrophic 12-degree increase? That's cool, as long as I get to drive cheap.
Harvard psychologist Daniel Gilbert is quoted in the article:
“Global warming is bad, but it doesn’t make us feel nauseated or angry or disgraced, and thus we don’t feel compelled to rail against it as we do against other momentous threats to our species, such as flag burning.”
“Moral emotions are the brain’s call to action. If climate change were caused by gay sex, or by the practice of eating kittens, millions of protesters would be massing in the streets.”
My favorite part of the article, though, is the end, where the author is responding to Dumbass Senator James Inhofe and others who would deny the existence of human-caused climate change or point to the fact that there's "only" a 10 percent chance that we're going to hit "We're All Going to Die" on the Global Warming Scale in the next century:
Most people would pay a substantial share of their wealth — much more, certainly, than the modest cost of a carbon tax — to avoid having someone pull the trigger on a gun pointed at their head with one bullet and nine empty chambers. Yet that’s the kind of risk that some people think we should take.
In a somewhat related matter, watch this and all other performances by George Watsky:
Friday, February 12, 2010
Scariest damn thing I've read all week
Please see this long but important New York Times article. Here's my favorite part:
"Marshall recommended that textbooks present America’s founding and history in terms of motivational stories on themes like the Pilgrims’ zeal to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the natives." (Emphasis mine).
This is sort of the topic of my thesis. I think it would be more accurate to say, "the Pilgrims' zeal to slaughter the hell out of the natives, which they justified by calling them 'Canaanites.'"
What's YOUR favorite part?
"Marshall recommended that textbooks present America’s founding and history in terms of motivational stories on themes like the Pilgrims’ zeal to bring the Gospel of Jesus Christ to the natives." (Emphasis mine).
This is sort of the topic of my thesis. I think it would be more accurate to say, "the Pilgrims' zeal to slaughter the hell out of the natives, which they justified by calling them 'Canaanites.'"
What's YOUR favorite part?
Monday, February 08, 2010
Problems with theological research
Googled: "shouldn't use" + "five books of moses"
Result: "The main principles of Kashrut are laid down in the Five Books of Moses and are ... So you shouldn't use Worcestershire Sauce, which is made from anchovies, ..."
Result: "The main principles of Kashrut are laid down in the Five Books of Moses and are ... So you shouldn't use Worcestershire Sauce, which is made from anchovies, ..."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)