I have a PayPal account, so when I received the following email yesterday, it concerned me enough that I decided to log on to PayPal to find out more about this unauthorized change to my account: You've added an additional email address to your PayPal account. If you don.t agree…
Here’s a site for scientists looking for help in presenting the need to vigorously teach evolution, when confronted by anti-science types.
I keep falling into the trap that this should be easy to convince people to study evolution in light of the abundant evidence in support and the elegance of natural selection. On the issue of whether the Earth is 6,000 years old, how about this: If you believe in God, the universe would (it seems to me) to be God’s elaborate “clock.” Dozens of physical and biological mechanisms are commensurate in suggesting that the Earth is far more than 6,000 years old. Why deny these numerous testable clock mechanisms in order to pursue a narrow inquiry-ending view (one of many) of an ancient book of aprochraphal (un-testable) origins?
But, alas, presenting well-established scientific facts don’t convince Creationists. In fact, no evidence convinces them that the version of the Bible that they bought at Wal-Mart is the one true inerrant version, despite an avalanche of evidence to the contrary. To me, it is a red flag when non-experts reject the experts when virtually all of the experts (those trained and practicing in a field) speak in unison.
Certainly, then, announcing broad-minded scientific principles is not enough to pry open most of those closed minds. In fact, the terms “science,” “academic” and “intellectual” make many creationists bristle and turn away. Turn on any 24-hour Christian AM radio show for confirmation.
This new site is sponsored by the Federation of …
A few days ago, I was at the Memphis Convention Center waiting for Dennis Kucinich to enter a large room to begin his press conference. The reporter sitting in front of me noticed that I was wearing credentials bearing the word “press,” credentials granted by the National Conference for Media Reform.
She asked me about “Dangerous Intersection.” I told her that it is a blog created in March 2006. I mentioned that we have a dozen participating authors and that we get about 1100 unique visitors each day.
She asked, “Would you have ever believed back in March that you would be sitting here covering a press conference of a person running for President of the United States?” It didn’t cross my mind back then. This blogging experience has taken lots of unexpected twists and turns. I jokingly told her that she was making me nervous by making the press conference seem more important–and reminding me that I am merely a citizen journalist.
(Here I am in Memphis, Citizen Journalist. The bottom of my badge reads “Press.”)
One of the main points stressed throughout the Media Reform Conference, however, was that journalism is changing rapidly. Corporate media is struggling (often because its corporate owners are muzzling its reporters) and citizen journalists are stepping into the void. Though the citizen journalists range in quality, they do include many highly qualified reporters who are having lots of fun contributing to the public discourse. Prior to this movement, most of these people …
This post is yet another entry summarizing proceedings of the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, Tennessee. The conference is sponsored by Free Press.
A panel presented yesterday was entitled “Saving the Internet.” [At his plenary speech, Bill Moyers has suggested an alternate way of designating this issue: “equal access to the Internet.”] At the panel presentation, Tim Wu summarized the concept of net neutrality issue. Tim is a professor at Columbia Law School who specializes in telecommunications law and copyright. In 2006, he wrote a book titled Who Controls the Internet.
Wu explain that the Internet is a meritocratic network. It is a place where we don’t need permission to speak. The aim of “net neutrality” is “to protect this no-permission” aspect of the Internet. The electric network of the Internet, itself, is a second form of neutrality. The idea is that any compatible device should be allowed to be connected to the network.
The function of net neutrality is to protect the Internet from incursions by phone companies and cable providers. If they had their way, the Internet will become like cable companies or “like the Chinese Internet,” where the provider tells you how you can use the network.
Wu previously worked with a telecommunications company. He was not proud of this, but admitted that his job was to try to sell ways to discriminate use based on content. Ironically, this is exactly what he is now concerned about. That is why he wrote a seminal paper …
A recent post on Daily Kos reported on the U.S. House of Representatives passing a bill to loosen Republican restrictions on stem-cell research. Although it sailed through the House and looks set to pass the Senate, George W. Bush has threatened to veto it, and it has not yet gained…