Rechercher dans ce blog

Wednesday, September 30, 2020

Opinion: Religious freedom on campus isn't a privilege, it's equality - The Detroit News

The development of climate security discourse in Japan - EurekAlert

israelob.blogspot.com
IMAGE

IMAGE: Summary of the four categories of climate security discourse view more 

Credit: NIES

As the level of understanding about climate change has increased, the term "climate security" has been increasingly used in the rapidly growing literature on this subject. Although Japan has officially acknowledged the importance of tackling climate change, discussion of climate security has been almost nonexistent among Japanese governmental officials, politicians, and academics. Our aim was to trace discourses related to climate security in Japan to determine why so little exists in Japan and whether or not such discourse could suggest new areas for consideration to more comprehensively respond to the climate change problem.

Because of different interpretations and uses of the term "climate security" in the existing literature, we first categorized existing approaches to climate security into four types and used this categorization to examine Japan's discourse from these perspectives (Table 1). Two of the approaches, namely "long-term irreversible planetary changes" and "short-term abrupt risks to individuals", had been considered in Japan previously but without specific reference to the term climate security. The other two, "cause of conflict and violence" and "impacts to military and defense organizations", however, had not been used and need to be included in discussions of climate change in Japan.

Some of the topics not discussed in Japan include indirect economic losses of Japanese industries via supply chains, loss of Japan's exclusive economic zone due to sea-level rise, and the potential inflow of refugees resulting from extreme weather patterns outside of Japan.

###

Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
October 01, 2020 at 11:02AM
https://ift.tt/34hHKcw

The development of climate security discourse in Japan - EurekAlert
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

'Better to call it a discourse:' Locals react to first presidential debate - KOTA

israelob.blogspot.com

SOUTH DAKOTA (KOTA) - Tuesday night’s presidential debate received mixed reviews

“What we see for a presidential debate or even a Congressional debate, is almost never anything that looks like what a high school debater once knew and loved," said Mark Vargo, former Stevens High School debate coach. "We call it a debate when perhaps it would be better to call it a discourse.”

Vargo said presidential debates are very different from the traditional debate form.

“It’s confrontational but it also isn’t nearly as rigorous," said Vargo. "In a collegiate or especially a high school debate, we absolutely expect people to be working off of evidence and facts and to argue about what those facts mean, instead and in a presidential debate, we mostly have people talking about opinion.”

Some people felt Tuesday night’s debate went well,

“I think that’s what the American people wanted to hear; cut through it, interrupt if you can and that’s what he did and I think that served him well and Republicans well," said Jeff Holbrook, Pennington County GOP Chairperson.

Others did not.

“Well I watched the entire debate and I really don’t think you can call it a debate, I feel like it was more of a verbal accosting from Trump all through that entire evening and the only real credible content that I received came from Joe Biden," said Pam Cole, South Dakota Democratic Party Executive Director.

Wherever you fall on the political spectrum, Vargo says moving to a more traditional debate form could ease some of the contention.

“Instead of appealing to a variety of emotional triggers and a variety of buzzwords, that those debates really did come back to what you believe and work backward from that to what the facts are that support it," said Vargo. "And that’s something that is absolutely part of every single high school and collegiate debate that is almost always completely lacking in a presidential debate.”

Tuesday night’s debate was the first of three. The other two will happen on October 15th and 22nd.

Copyright 2020 KOTA. All rights reserved.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
October 01, 2020 at 07:00AM
https://ift.tt/2Srd9E9

'Better to call it a discourse:' Locals react to first presidential debate - KOTA
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

L3 plans to train local elected leaders, promote civil discourse - BizWest

israelob.blogspot.com

A leadership program designed to prepare people for service as local elected officials and to encourage civil discourse has begun in Northern Colorado.

Called L3 — Leveraging Local Leaders — the program is a collaboration between BizWest and the facilitators of L3, Leah Johnson and Tom Lucero.

The nonpartisan program will integrate leadership development, action-based candidate training and comprehensive policy education to create a group of leaders ready to run for office and encourage civil discourse to find solutions to Northern Colorado’s challenges.

L3 seeks to recruit a diverse group of leaders from the region, provide them training and mentorship, educate them on the top public-policy issues and prepare them to run for local office.

“This is an exciting endeavor for BizWest,” said Jeff Nuttall, publisher.  “While there are many leadership programs in Northern Colorado, there is not one that focuses on training people to run for office and encouraging folks once they are there to promote civil discourse and solutions. We have to seek and train the leaders we want, and now more than ever, ensuring those leaders have the tools necessary to get there and be effective is critical.” 

The program will equip participants with tools and skills to run winning campaigns, provide information on business issues affecting the region, cultivate collaboration to foster new ideas and open-minded public policy that can bridge partisan divides to advance pro-business policies, and eliminate barriers to entry that inhibit participation from business leaders.

“Having been a part of the political system virtually my whole career working on the federal, state and local levels, I cannot stress enough how much the local level matters.  I want to invest and focus my time on where we can make the most impact in building bridges and finding solutions,” said co-founder Leah Johnson.  

“Training pragmatic, solution-oriented people to serve their local communities is the best way I can think of,” she said. “We have to do better, and I believe we can.”

“Finding and recruiting candidates who understand the long-term economic vitality in Northern Colorado is critically important and should be a top priority for everyone,” co-founder Tom Lucero said. “We want leaders who have a 50-year vision for our region and who understand our interconnected economy.”  

Johnson and Lucero have both been elected officials from different political orientations. They say that they subscribe to the Tip O’Neill/Ronald Reagan school of politics, that “you can disagree like heck and still be friends.”

Information and registration information can be found at the L3 website.

Applicants for the program need to have:

  • Willingness to work across the aisle to develop solutions to the region’s most pressing public policy issues.
  • Commitment to creating and advancing pro-business policies that elevate the economic vitality of Northern Colorado.
  • Evidence of life experience and leadership skills within their community as a volunteer and/or working professional .
  • Desire to acquire knowledge of a variety of industries and a willingness to learn about the issues critical to the region.
  • Dedicated to meeting the time requirements of the program and ability to fully engage in the entirety of the program.
  • Motivated to engage in vibrant and constructive discourse about issues important to the region’s future.

Applications open Oct. 1 and will remain open until Nov. 20. Applicants will be interviewed; classes begin in January.


 


Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 08:10PM
https://ift.tt/3iiatmD

L3 plans to train local elected leaders, promote civil discourse - BizWest
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

Special Q and A - Obstacle Discourse with Davis and Chace - Obstacle Racing Media

israelob.blogspot.com

Obstacle Discourse with Davis and Chace – A weekly news show with Josh Chace and Matt B. Davis discussing items of the week for Spartan Race, Tough Mudder, and all other OCR related news.

This week’s topics: Your questions!

Show Notes:

Support Us On Patreon

Join the Discord

Davis and Chace theme music composed by Charmian Lee!

Listen using the player below or the link at the top of this page. 

Matt B. Davis

is the host of the Obstacle Racing Media Podcast and the author of "Down and Dirty-The Essential Training Guide for Obstacle Races and Mud Runs". He is also the only (known) #wafflehouseelite obstacle racer.

Latest posts by Matt B. Davis (see all)

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 08:37PM
https://ift.tt/3n6oh79

Special Q and A - Obstacle Discourse with Davis and Chace - Obstacle Racing Media
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

Tuesday, September 29, 2020

Join the Opinion team for a chat with Mark Kelly - Arizona Daily Star

[unable to retrieve full-text content]

Join the Opinion team for a chat with Mark Kelly  Arizona Daily Star

"Opinion" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 04:00AM
https://ift.tt/33caog0

Join the Opinion team for a chat with Mark Kelly - Arizona Daily Star
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

How to have conversations with people who have a different opinion than you - WISHTV.com

There is no shortage of topics that bring strong opinions, especially as we get closer to the Presidential election, continue to deal with COVID-19, and navigate working and learning from home. With strong opinions can come difficult conversations. 

Lisa Mitchell, Communications Expert & Founder of Power Body Language, shares a few tips to navigating conversations with people who have different opinions than you. 

1. Assume Good Intentions  

It’s OK that people have strong opinions. It’s OK that their opinion may be different than yours. It doesn’t mean that they are incapable or unwilling to engage in meaningful dialogue so enter into those interactions assuming you both have good intentions for productive conversation. Most people, at their core, really just want to feel seen, heard, and valued. 

2. Different Doesn’t Have To Mean Bad 

Conversations, by nature, are meant for sharing information and data points. They can drive you towards a common goal or at the least, towards a shared understanding. Sometimes you may find yourself posted up on the polar opposite side of another person’s outlook and that doesn’t mean that either of are wrong or bad, it can just mean that you both are firmly rooted in your beliefs. 

There doesn’t have to be a winner and loser, there can just be genuine listening, thoughtful consideration, and respect of each other throughout the interaction. 

3. Show appreciation for the person even if you disagree with their opinion or viewpoint. 

Sometimes, if the topic is heated enough, it’s necessary to challenge yourself to separate your feelings for the person from your feelings about their opinion of a particular topic. It can be as simple as saying something like, “I don’t think we are going to find common ground on this topic but I appreciate you taking the time to share your thoughts with me.” 

You don’t have to fight every battle on differing opinions and you don’t have to disrespect or discount the person offering the differing opinion when you can’t find common ground. 

 Visit www.powerbodylanguage.com or connect on Instagram at @lisamitchellindy.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 12:42AM
https://ift.tt/30hThrl

How to have conversations with people who have a different opinion than you - WISHTV.com
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Trump's Reported Tax Records Spark More Stimulus Discourse - PopCulture.com

israelob.blogspot.com

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 03:29AM
https://ift.tt/3l4mWfD

Trump's Reported Tax Records Spark More Stimulus Discourse - PopCulture.com
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

Opinion: Is Putin's war in Syria against America a miscalculation? - DW (English)

When Putin sent troops to Syria five years ago, he caught the US napping. But the Middle East is changing fast, and what looked like a success strategy may turn out to be a failure, writes Konstantin Eggert.

At the end of September 2015, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and its allies, the Lebanese Hezbollah fighters, were on their last legs trying to prop up the Assad regime and its forces, which were fighting an increasingly losing battle against Islamists of all stripes, supported by various regional players — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar — plus the formations of Syrian Kurds. The Kremlin gave Assad and the Iranians what they were sorely lacking — massive air cover. The Russian pilots were soon followed by marines, military advisers, and mercenaries from the so-called Wagner private military company.

Today, it doesn't seem like anyone can dislodge Assad. Vladimir Putin has expanded and modernized Soviet-era Russian naval stations in the Mediterranean towns of Latakia and Tartus, turning them into bases. Though for Russia, which was not, is not and will not be a global naval power, this is probably not the most important acquisition. It is not entirely clear what benefits the Russian regime gained from the exploitation of Syria's natural resources, but the Wagner group's protection allegedly extends to natural resources and oil refineries, which speaks volumes.

Putin's anti-US foreign policy

However, the main reason for the Kremlin's involvement in Syria has been the same as always — to continue a global pushback against the United States that Putin launched with his belligerent 2007 speech at the Munich Security Conference. The Russian elite's recurring nightmare is that one day the US, with its missionary zeal to democratize the world (somewhat weakened by the disengagement policies, first of Barack Obama and later Donald Trump), is still seen as the main threat by the Kremlin. Keeping the US at bay from the post-Soviet space and supporting anti-Western regimes around the globe are the mainstays of what passes for Russian foreign and security policy under Putin.

Read more: Opinion: Putin's power games may get out of hand

DW columnist Konstantin Eggert

DW columnist Konstantin Eggert

In this respect Syria in 2015 is the continuation of Georgia in 2008, Ukraine in 2014, Montenegro in 2016 (where Moscow tried to organize a coup d'etat to prevent the country from joining NATO) and Venezuela in 2019 (where the Kremlin is firmly backing Nicolas Maduro). Belarus in 2020 where the Kremlin has sided with President Alexander Lukashenko against his own people is now in the same category. Putin takes his role as defender of dictatorships around the world very seriously. In his opinion, this makes the US respect, if not fear him.

What has Russia gained?

But for Russia's long-term national interests, securing Assad's power is a dubious gain, if a gain at all. Moscow is now firmly tied to the fate of the Syrian regime and, even more precariously, of Assad's Iranian patrons. This is happening in an era of dramatic changes in the region. The normalization of Israel's relations with the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, carried out with Washington's mediation, marks a historical shift in regional politics. This is an extremely unpleasant surprise not only for the mullahs in Tehran, but also for the Kremlin. Premature belief in the decline of American influence in the Middle East and the inevitability of Iranian hegemony has played a bad trick on both.

Read more: Opinion: Donald Trump's tricky Syria 'gift' to Vladimir Putin 

If Sudan, Oman and eventually Saudi Arabia follow the example of the UAE and Bahrain, the Iranian regime will face tough times — even it's collapse could be on the cards soon. Without support from Tehran, Assad will be very vulnerable. Moreover, in such circumstances his desire to reach out to Washington and Riyadh may then turn out to be irresistible. Russia cannot prevent this in any way, and its military presence in Syria will easily become a bargaining chip in Assad's political games.

Putin's strategic shortsightedness has also manifested itself in relations with another regional player — Turkey. The informal understanding on Syria that he reached in 2015-2016 with President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been severely undermined. Five years ago, the Kremlin thought it was "chipping away" at NATO's southern flank by wooing Ankara. Today, however, Erdogan finances part of the anti-Assad forces in Syria, has joined the fight against the Kremlin's client Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar in Libya, and now also supports Azerbaijan in its military operations against Armenia — one of Moscow's most reliable and closest allies.

Read more: Opinion: Vladimir Putin rekindles Recep Tayyip Erdogan's lost love for NATO

Five years since the first Russia MiGs appeared in the skies over Syria, the answer to the question "What did Putin's war give the Russians?" is simple — "Nothing." The people feel it and increasingly want the Kremlin to withdraw. Putin's personal prestige has turned out to be different from Russia's national interests. Those who come after him will have to redefine them.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 02:47AM
https://ift.tt/2GgDxxw

Opinion: Is Putin's war in Syria against America a miscalculation? - DW (English)
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

How Producer Todd Lieberman’s Desire For Political Discourse Beyond Hollywood Consensus Zone Led To Local Cleveland Newspapers – Guest Column - Deadline

israelob.blogspot.com

Editor’s note: Todd Lieberman, who with David Hoberman co-owns Mandeville Films and Television, has been a prolific producer of films from Beauty and the Beast to The Aeronauts, Wonder, Stronger, The Fighter, The Muppets and The Proposal. Like most in Hollywood, he spends time in the pandemic prepping projects for the cautious rebound in production starts, and discussing presidential politics — sometimes in equal measure. Here he describes how this prompted him to reach back to his Cleveland hometown in search of real discussion about the high stakes of the upcoming election. Since most in the Hollywood community came here from elsewhere, it sounds like a pretty effective way to engage in some real dialogue that isn’t about preaching to the converted on social media.

Several months ago a friend was complaining to me about the state of politics and wondering how we got here — he couldn’t believe that the system allowed for us to get to a place where the division in the country seems insurmountable, and the President himself is the one fanning the flames of that division. He confided that depression was creeping in because of it all, and felt the only answer for him (and the country) was a change in leadership at the top. I asked him what he planned to do about it. “I’m not really a protester,” was his response. That was a lightbulb moment for me, not because I was judging him, but because I was him.

When thinking about a desired change we have a few options. We can let whatever anger and dissatisfaction with the current state of affairs slowly eat away at us. We can ignore it completely and live inside our own safe bubble where the realities of the world don’t exist. Or, we can do something. Historically I have been the “living in a bubble” guy — believing that the system works and desperately clinging to a positive attitude. Sure, I donate to the campaigns I like and participate in organizations I feel have value politically, but I have generally been uncomfortable discussing my views out loud. I welcome a good debate, but absolutely thrive more in peace than discord. If my eyes have been wedged open to anything this year, it’s that the system, although it doesn’t always work, does allow for us to try and make it work better. And within that system we all have the right and, in many cases, the obligation to use our voices.

But if you do that in Hollywood, you will mostly be greeted with a head-nod in the affirmative. While using my voice for political reasons is not innately comfortable for me, that discussion was pushing me toward the uncomfortable. And if I was going to take that step, I was going to do it with people who may feel differently than I do. I wanted real discussion. I toyed with a ton of ideas, spoke to some confidants, and ultimately decided to reach out to my hometown of Cleveland, Ohio, and make a plea directly to my city, asking them to consider my point of view on the election, and most importantly to vote. With that, I took out full-page ads in the local papers [click to enlarge].

Much of what followed was not surprising: messages of support for voicing what many are feeling (family, friends and strangers); messages of pure hate (all strangers…and maybe some bots because I actually didn’t think humans could be that mean!); and a handful of people sending polite responses without saying much (mostly family who likely disagree with my argument). One family friend actually decided to write a letter to the editor to debate my points in print — that one made me smile.

In all the cacophony of responses it might have been easy to lose the substance. But the most surprising part of all were the messages from people who really wanted to connect. People who truly wanted to know why I feel what I do, and to understand why I am so staunch in my beliefs. I was stunned by how many individuals are so fed up with the system and dislike both candidates that they planned on sitting out the election in protest. They want to do the right thing, but are so overwhelmed with information that they’ve been rendered inert.

Engaging with these people was the most rewarding part of it all. These weren’t anonymous trolling tweets, or posts with no accountability or repercussions; these were real people who wanted to connect, understand and share points of view. And while many of them don’t share my views politically, we were able to find common ground in some other areas (like Cleveland sports!) as we discussed uncomfortable topics in a respectful way. Yes, talking to all these people was awkward, frustrating, time consuming and exhausting; but it was also enlightening and exhilarating.

So when [Deadline co-editor in chief] Mike [Fleming Jr] asked me to write a guest column, my first impulse was that I had already stepped way outside my comfort zone for my hometown, and I wasn’t prepared to do that here. But the passing of RBG reminded me of the urgency of this moment. And I know many of you could use your voice as I did, and reach out to your own hometowns to have those uncomfortable conversations as well. Of the countless people I spoke to, texted with and emailed, half of those who were undecided or planning on sitting out the election ended the conversation by saying they were going to do more research and get back to me. One quarter of the people I spoke with ultimately told me they now intend to vote. The margin between victory and defeat in many states will be unfathomably small. Every single vote matters. And this experience illustrated that while many of us sit with the strength of our convictions, there are still many out there who crave guidance and counterpoints to the dizzying information they are being fed. I recently watched The Social Dilemma on Netflix (a must-watch IMO), and it put into words and images what we all intuitively know — that the amount of disinformation in the world is beyond comprehension, and the ways it metastasizes are petrifying. The disinformation cycles only seem to be thriving more within the isolationist environment we’ve all been living in for the past six months.

So what can we do about it all, and why did I write this column? Lightbulb moment #2. My experience shone the brightest of lights on a heartening truth: there are undecided voters out there. There are people craving the clarity some of us already have in our minds. But it is only human connection that can cut through the haze. And that puts the onus — and, in these concerning stages of our democracy, the obligation — on us to seek them out. As I said in my hometown papers, I believe that what makes our country great is that we can have those discussions while remaining friends and neighbors. I found this to be true, and my hunch is that you will too. Character counts, and civility still exists. You have the power to initiate this dialogue. And having that dialogue with people you grew up with outside of Hollywood is worth the effort. So, with only a few weeks left to determine our future, I urge each of you to use this power, and find comfort in being uncomfortable.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
September 30, 2020 at 01:08AM
https://ift.tt/3ifLOiC

How Producer Todd Lieberman’s Desire For Political Discourse Beyond Hollywood Consensus Zone Led To Local Cleveland Newspapers – Guest Column - Deadline
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

Opinion | Why America Ignored Its Coronavirus Response Plan - The New York Times

Video player loading
The U.S. spent 15 years preparing for the coronavirus. Why did we handle it so badly?

A year ago, the United States was regarded as the country best prepared for a pandemic. Our government had spent nearly two decades strategizing for a doomsday scenario. So what went wrong?

How is it that America, which wrote the global playbook for pandemic response, accounts for just 4 percent of the world’s population yet more than 20 percent of the world’s coronavirus deaths?

One of the most important functions of journalism is to provide accountability, so in the video above, we dive deep into an exploration of what went wrong and when, and who’s to blame and why.

Johnny Harris (@johnnywharris) is a video producer.

Nicholas Kristof (@NickKristof) is an columnist for Opinion.

Adam Ellick (@aellick) is the executive producer of Opinion Video.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 10:16PM
https://ift.tt/2GeSvEe

Opinion | Why America Ignored Its Coronavirus Response Plan - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Opinion: Don’t believe what Uber and Lyft claim about Prop. 22 - The Mercury News

(AP Photo/Gene J. Puskar, File)
Gig companies now are waging the most expensive propaganda campaign in state history.

By now, you’ve probably seen some slick ads for Proposition 22, paid for by Uber, Lyft and other app-based companies. They hope you have because they’re spending $181 million to tell you a story.

These so-called gig companies now are waging the most expensive propaganda campaign in state history. They’ve outspent all other special interests that came before them: Big Oil, Big Pharma, Big Tobacco.

They know they must spend big, because it costs a lot to confuse the public about the facts.

Here’s the truth about Prop. 22: It is an initiative that would exempt these gig companies from having to comply with the fundamental employment laws that apply to all other industries — things such as minimum wage, overtime, workers’ compensation, unemployment insurance, access to safety equipment and more.

In the case of those TV ads, the fiction is that all drivers do the work as part-time gigs. The ads cite misleading research based on company-provided data to assert that “80 percent of drivers work only a few hours a week” and that drivers support being independent contractors “by a 4-1 margin.”

Independent studies from both ends of the state tell an entirely different story. UC Santa Cruz research concluded: “On-demand ride-hailing and delivery work in San Francisco is performed predominantly by people for whom it is close to full-time work.”

A survey of Southern California drivers by UCLA found that “almost half of the drivers are driving 35 hours or more” a week. In addition, 55 percent said they would prefer to earn a set hourly wage after expenses.

As a ride-hail driver for the last six years, I can attest that Uber and Lyft are desperate to get more work out of existing drivers by offering bonuses to drive more hours. When you try to chase those bonuses, you can fall behind. One year I had five flat tires. I’ve replaced cracked windshields. All those expenses came out of my pocket. My Toyota Prius finally died recently, after 275,000 miles.

Prop. 22 includes promises to improve conditions for drivers, but they are empty promises.

It says drivers will be paid 120 percent of the minimum wage — but they would be paid only for “engaged hours” and never for the time they spend disinfecting cars between rides, waiting for the next call or driving back from some remote drop-off location. The net effect would be a sub-minimum wage.

It says drivers will be paid 30 cents a mile for expenses, but that doesn’t come close to covering the actual cost. In fact, it’s only about half of what the IRS allows truly independent contractors to claim.

It says drivers will receive insurance coverage in the event of an on-the-job injury. But the provision caps the amount of medical expenses and limits the period for which drivers could receive disability pay. There are no such restrictions for employees covered by workers’ compensation insurance.

Drivers should be classified as employees because the facts show that is exactly what they are. Courts in California have consistently held that to be the case.

It is drivers like me who will lose if Prop. 22 passes. We’re grateful for the support we’ve received from labor unions that can be counted on to speak out against exploitation. But we are mismatched against an industry that will spend whatever it takes to preserve a system that impoverishes drivers.

There’s a better way. They could follow the law. Please make them do that. Vote No on Prop. 22.

Edan Alva of Alameda has been driving for Lyft for six years.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 08:10PM
https://ift.tt/36irv1K

Opinion: Don’t believe what Uber and Lyft claim about Prop. 22 - The Mercury News
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

The Case for Accepting Defeat on Roe - The New York Times

In “Unpregnant,” the HBO bildungsroman released this month, the plot revolves around a 17-year-old heroine who travels from Missouri to Albuquerque — a road trip of 1,000 miles — because that’s the nearest place she can get an abortion without parental consent. Watching it made me recall a conversation with a feminist friend, who shocked the hell out of me last year by saying that progressives were too focused on protecting Roe v. Wade.

Why? The argument is that we currently have the worst of both worlds. We’ve basically lost the abortion fight: If Roe is overturned, access to abortion will depend on where you live — but access to abortion already depends on where you live. At the same time, we have people voting for Trump because he’ll appoint justices who will overturn Roe. Maybe it is time to face the fact that abortion access will be fought for in legislatures, not courts.

I was shocked, but I could see the logic. It’s true that abortion access is already abysmal. The stressful road trip in “Unpregnant” is actually in some ways a best-case scenario; many women seeking abortions aren’t suburban teenagers without economic pressures or family responsibilities. Nearly 60 percent have already had one child and nearly half live below the poverty level; some fear they’ll be fired if they take time off, particularly if they need to make two trips, as they must in the 26 states with mandatory waiting periods.

The argument that the left has already lost the abortion fight reflects the fact that there’s no abortion clinic in 90 percent of American counties. This is the result of the highly successful death-by-a-thousand-cuts anti-abortion strategy, which has piled on restriction after restriction to make abortion inaccessible to as many American women as possible.

Chief Justice Roberts’s concurring opinion this summer in June Medical Services v. Russo — the one that mattered — was hailed as a surprise victory for abortion rights, but not by me. Justice Roberts refused to uphold Louisiana restrictions virtually identical to those the court struck down as unconstitutional just four years earlier, but clearly stated that his reluctance was because of his respect for precedent. Anyone with their eyes open could see the justice signaling to abortion opponents to continue the process of eroding Roe v. Wade’s nigh-absolute protection of access to abortion during the first trimester by inventing new types of restrictions, which they have been remarkably creative in doing.

If Judge Amy Coney Barrett becomes the next Supreme Court justice, Justice Roberts’s vote will be irrelevant, anyway. And if things already looked pretty grim, now they look much worse: Up to 21 states have passed laws banning or limiting abortions in ways that are currently unconstitutional. Many will go into effect immediately if Roe is fully overturned.

So what should we do now? Often forgotten is that R.B.G. herself had decided that Roe was a mistake. In 1992, she gave a lecture musing that the country might be better off if the Supreme Court had written a narrower decision and opened up a “dialogue” with state legislatures, which were trending “toward liberalization of abortion statutes” (to quote the Roe court). Roe “halted a political process that was moving in a reform direction and thereby, I believe, prolonged divisiveness and deferred stable settlement of the issue,” Justice Ginsburg argued. In the process, “a well-organized and vocal right-to-life movement rallied and succeeded, for a considerable time, in turning the legislative tide in the opposite direction.”

What Ginsburg called Roe’s “divisiveness” was instrumental in the rise of the American right, which was flailing until Phyllis Schlafly discovered the galvanizing force of opposition to abortion and the Equal Rights Amendment. Schlafly wrote the culture wars playbook that created the odd coupling of the country-club business elite with evangelicals and blue-collar whites. In exchange for business-friendly policies like tax cuts and deregulation, Republicans now allow these groups to control their agenda on religion and abortion. It’s hard to remember now but this was not inevitable: abortion was not always seen as the partisan issue it is today, nor did evangelicals uniformly oppose abortion.

Whether or not R.B.G.’s assessment of Roe was correct, the best tribute we can pay to her is to do what she suggests: open up the kind of dialogue that occurred in Ireland, where young people knocked on grannies’ doors and persuaded them to vote to legalize abortion, which — much to the distress of the Catholic Church — they did. (At the same time, activists galvanized to ensure that, in the absence of a referendum, women throughout the country would have access to and knowledge about medication abortions.)

Credit...Anna Moneymaker for The New York Times

I don’t want Roe to be overturned, but if that happens, it could bring political opportunity. The emotional heat that surrounds abortion as an issue manages to obscure that the attitudes driving opposition to abortion actually reveal some surprising common ground with progressives on economic issues.

Non-elites often see elites’ obsession with abortion rights as evidence that they are slaves to ambition who don’t see that “family comes first.” But look closer and one can find embedded in this ideology a powerful critique of capitalism: “I think we’ve accepted abortion because we’re a very materialistic society and there is less time for caring,” as one woman told the anthropologist Faye Ginsburg. The feminist historian Linda Gordon agreed: Those against abortion “fear a completely individualized society with all services based on cash nexus relationships, without the influence of nurturing women counteracting the completely egoistic principles of the economy.”

I’m still reluctant to embrace the “overrule and move on” strategy, but moving on may be our only choice. And if abortion stops playing such a role in presidential elections, then Democrats may fare better with the 19 percent of Trump voters who have bipartisan voting habits and warm feelings toward minorities; we know 83 percent of them think the economy is rigged in favor of the rich and 68 percent favor raising taxes on the rich.

Once their presidential vote is not driven by Supreme Court appointments, how many might decide to vote on economic issues? And what greater tribute could there be to R.B.G. than both a legislative restoration of abortion rights, and a new Democratic Party that can win — not just by a hair but by a landslide?

Joan C. Williams is a professor of law at the University of California, Hastings, College of the Law and the author of “White Working Class.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 04:00PM
https://ift.tt/3cI56vD

The Case for Accepting Defeat on Roe - The New York Times
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

On abortion, Amy Coney Barrett doesn't speak for American Christians - CNN

Guthrie Graves-Fitzsimmons
Conservative Christians are thrilled about Barrett's nomination and the prospect it raises for them of overturning Roe v. Wade, but their views don't align with the reality of what many American Christians believe. Barrett has called abortion "always immoral" and voted against abortion rights as a federal appeals court judge. She has cast doubt on stare decisis -- the principle that justices should follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.
So far, the public debate about faith and Barrett's nomination has focused on her controversial 1998 law review paper about Catholic judges recusing themselves from cases where the law conflicts with the Catholic Church's teaching. While that's an important topic, the discussion has obscured a more important aspect of her nomination: how her extreme legal views are rejected by American Christians overall. Over the past few decades, the loudest voices on the Christian right have largely come to represent what it means to be a Christian in the United States, but they shouldn't be allowed to distort the actual views of people in the pews. Since the 2016 election, progressive Christians are increasingly stepping forward to insist on being heard in our national conversation.
Republican Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri said Trump's pick must believe Roe v. Wade was "wrongly decided" and that Barrett "meets that standard." Marjorie Dannenfelser, a leading anti-abortion activist, said Barrett is "the perfect combination of brilliant jurist and a woman who brings the argument to the court that is potentially the contrary to the views of the sitting women justices."
The reality about what the majority of American Christians believe about reproductive health care is far from how politicians and anti-abortion activists portray it. According to Pew Research Center, 59% of Christians do not want the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v Wade. Barrett's fellow Catholics are some of the most opposed to her conservative vision for the Supreme Court. They oppose overturning Roe v. Wade by a more than 2-to-1 margin.
Not only do most American Christians not want to overturn Roe v. Wade, many Christian denominations are part of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, an advocacy organization that supports abortion rights. "Most Christians are committed to upholding our God-given right to bodily autonomy, including our reproductive freedom, as essential to the abundant life that Jesus proclaimed," the Rev. Katey Zeh, the group's CEO and a Baptist minister, told me in reaction to Judge Barrett's nomination to the Supreme Court. "The political anti-abortion movement weaponizes Christianity and does not value life; it values the power to control those living on the margins, the very ones that Jesus calls us to center."
"What is at stake with Roe v Wade is the right to bodily autonomy for all women, and while Judge Barrett may disagree theologically with Roe v Wade, the Constitution does not authorize her to legislate her religious beliefs," the Rev. Traci Blackmon told me in an email on Saturday. She's the Associate General Minister of Justice & Local Church Ministries at the United Church of Christ, one of the founding members of the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
Abortion is not the only issue where Judge Barrett's views conflict with many American Christians. "Judge Barrett's long expressed preference of constitutional interpretation toward originalism is understandably a matter of concern for those of us not equitably included in the ethos of the original document," Rev. Blackmon wrote in reference to Black Americans, women, and other groups who were denied equality under the Constitution at our nation's founding.
The most stinging rebuke of her nomination so far has come from Sister Simone Campbell, a leading voice for Catholics in Washington, DC. "I know that Judge Barrett shares my faith, but her past words and actions prove that she does not hold all life to be sacred," Campbell wrote in a statement. "Catholics cannot support judges or politicians who blatantly ignore the breadth of Catholic Social Teaching on women's rights, voting rights, immigrant's rights, health care, environmental protections, and so much more." Of particular concern is the Affordable Care Act, which Sister Simone Campbell's group NETWORK lobbied for intensely. Barrett has criticized a previous Supreme Court decision to uphold the law and Democrats have made defending it a key part of their opposition to her nomination.
All of this comes on top of what Democrats are saying and many Americans believe is an illegitimate process to nominate Judge Barrett. "Having aggressively blocked the Supreme Court nomination of Merrick Garland by former President Barack Obama, citing such nominations should not occur in the final year of a presidential term, elected officials who lack the integrity to honor their own stated convictions have far graver implications than any appointment," Rev. Blackmon told me. Sister Simone Campbell called the nomination a "crass partisan power grab," and "an insult to our democracy."
If the Senate is going to go ahead and consider Judge Barrett, we need to at least be clear about what American Christians actually believe. Among many other concerns, the push to overturn Roe v. Wade at the heart of this confirmation battle is deeply unpopular not only for Americans in general but also for Christians.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 07:56AM
https://ift.tt/36gglu8

On abortion, Amy Coney Barrett doesn't speak for American Christians - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Monday, September 28, 2020

Community Platforms Market Future Scope including key players Answerbase, Higher, Discourse - The Daily Chronicle

israelob.blogspot.com

A new Research Report published by JCMR under the title Global Community Platforms Market (COVID 19 Version) can grow into the world’s most important market which has played an important role in making progressive impacts on the global economy. The Global Community Platforms Market Report presents a dynamic vision for concluding and researching market size, market hope and competitive environment. The study is derived from primary and secondary Research and consists of qualitative & Quality analysis. The main company in this Research is Answerbase, Higher, Discourse, Axero Solutions, Ginger, Centercode, Influitive, Enterprise Hive, DNN Software, Igloo Software, Magentrix Corporation, Mzinga, inSided, Salesforce, Midwest Tape, Lithium(Jive-x), Intranet Connections, OnSemble, Muut, Khoros, Small World Labs, West Corporation, Vanilla, Telligent Systems, Tribe ,

Get Free Sample Report PDF @: jcmarketresearch.com/report-details/1128355/sample

Data sourcing technique we follow: We Used Some Premium Sites to gather data.

Community Platforms Perception Primary Research 80% (interviews) Secondary Research (20%)
     
  OEMs Data Exchange
Supply side(production) Competitors Economical & demographic data
  Raw materials Suppliers & Producer Company Reports,& publication
  Specialist interview Government data/publication
    Independent investigation
     
Middleman side(sales) Distributors Product Source
  traders Sales Data
  wholesalers Custom Group
    Product comparison
     
Demand side(consumption) END-users/Custom Surveys/interviews Custom data
  Consumer Surveys Industry Data analysis
  Shopping Case Studies
    Reference Customers

Get Up to 40 % Discount on Enterprise Copy jcmarketresearch.com/report-details/1128355/discount

Note: Regional Breakdown & Sectional purchase Available We provide Pie Charts Best Customize Reports as per Requirements.

Research Methodology:

Primary Research:

We interviewed various key sources of supply and demand in the course of the Primary Research to obtain qualitative and quantitative information related to this report. Main sources of supply include key industry members, subject matter experts from key companies, and consultants from many major firms and organizations working on the Global Community Platforms Market.

Secondary Research:

Secondary Research was performed to obtain crucial information about the business supply chain, the company currency system, global corporate pools, and sector segmentation, with the lowest point, regional area, and technology-oriented perspectives. Secondary data were collected and analyzed to reach the total size of the market which the first survey confirmed.

Furthermore, the years considered for the study are as follows:

Historical year – 2013-2018

Base year – 2019

Forecast period** – 2020 to 2029

Some Key Research Questions & answers:

What Is impact of COVID 19 on Global Community Platforms Market?

Before COVID 19 Global Community Platforms Market Size Was XXX Million $ & After COVID 19 Excepted to Grow at a X% & XXX Million $.

Who are the Top Key Players in the Global Community Platforms Market and what are their priorities, strategies & developments?

Lists of Competitors in Research is: Answerbase, Higher, Discourse, Axero Solutions, Ginger, Centercode, Influitive, Enterprise Hive, DNN Software, Igloo Software, Magentrix Corporation, Mzinga, inSided, Salesforce, Midwest Tape, Lithium(Jive-x), Intranet Connections, OnSemble, Muut, Khoros, Small World Labs, West Corporation, Vanilla, Telligent Systems, Tribe ,

What are the Types & Applications of the Global Community Platforms Market?

Application’s cover in these Reports Is: SME (Small and Medium Enterprises), Large Enterprise,

Types Cover in this Research: On-Premise, Cloud-Based, SaaS,

Note: Please Share Your Budget on Call/Mail We will try to Reach your [email protected] Phone: +1 (925) 478-7203 / Email: [email protected]

Enquiry for Segment [email protected] jcmarketresearch.com/report-details/1128355/enquiry

All percent shares, breaks, and classifications were determined using the secondary sources and confirmed through the primary sources. All parameters that may affect the market covered in this study have been extensively reviewed, researched through basic investigations, and analyzed to obtain final quantitative and qualitative data. This has been the study of key quantitative and qualitative insights through interviews with industry experts, including CEOs, vice presidents, directors and marketing executives, as well as annual and financial reports from top market participants.

Table of Content:

1 Report Summary

1.1 Research Scope

1.2 Key Market Segments

1.3 Target Player

1.4 Market Analysis by Type On-Premise, Cloud-Based, SaaS,

1.5 Market by Application SME (Small and Medium Enterprises), Large Enterprise,

1.6 Learning Objectives

1.7 years considered

Place Order to Quick Buy Report @ jcmarketresearch.com/checkout/1128355

2 Global Growth Trends

2.1 Global Global Community Platforms Market Size

2.2 Trends of Global Community Platforms Market Growth by Region

2.3 Corporate trends

3 Global Community Platforms Market shares by key players

3.1 Global Community Platforms Market Size by Manufacturer

3.2 Global Community Platforms Market Key players Provide headquarters and local

3.3 Major Players Products / Solutions / Services

3.4 Enter the Barriers in the Global Community Platforms Market

3.5 Mergers, acquisitions and expansion plans

Continue……………………………………..

About Author:
JCMR global research and market intelligence consulting organization is uniquely positioned to not only identify growth opportunities but to also empower and inspire you to create visionary growth strategies for futures, enabled by our extraordinary depth and breadth of thought leadership, research, tools, events and experience that assist you for making goals into a reality. Our understanding of the interplay between industry convergence, Mega Trends, technologies and market trends provides our clients with new business models and expansion opportunities. We are focused on identifying the “Accurate Forecast” in every industry we cover so our clients can reap the benefits of being early market entrants and can accomplish their “Goals & Objectives”.

Contact Us:
JCMARKETRESEARCH
Mark Baxter (Head of Business Development)
Phone: +1 (925) 478-7203
Email: [email protected]

Connect with us at – LinkedIn

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"discourse" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 01:39PM
https://ift.tt/33dkfCd

Community Platforms Market Future Scope including key players Answerbase, Higher, Discourse - The Daily Chronicle
"discourse" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2KZL2bm
https://ift.tt/2z7DUH4

The most important national security question Trump and Biden need to address - CNN

A few weeks ago, scientists at the US Military Academy at West Point warned that "the wide availability of the protocols, procedures, and techniques necessary to produce and modify living organisms combined with an exponential increase in the availability of genetic data is leading to a revolution in science affecting the threat landscape that can be rivaled only by the development of the atomic bomb."
One scenario prompting particular concern is a contagious virus created or modified by a terrorist group or other bad actor that is then deliberately unleashed into the general population, potentially causing even more death and disruption around the world than Covid-19. A bioterror attack involving a pathogen with a high death rate "is kind of the nightmare scenario" Microsoft founder Bill Gates said in April.
For the last five years I have worked as editor-in-chief of CTC Sentinel, a monthly, independent publication of the Combating Terrorism Center (CTC) at West Point that leverages its network of scholars and practitioners to understand and confront contemporary terror threats. Since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, the rising level of concern about the bioterror threat among some of the best and brightest minds should be a Category-5 wake up call for all of us.
Juan Zarate, who served as Deputy National Security Advisor for Combating Terrorism from 2005 to 2009, recently noted in a CTC roundtable that I co-moderated that "the severity and extreme disruption of a novel coronavirus will likely spur the imagination of the most creative and dangerous groups and individuals to reconsider bioterrorist attacks."
What is especially sobering is that the pandemic has exposed the current weak capability of public health systems in even highly developed countries like the United States to respond to a potential future bioterror attack involving a deadly virus.
In the past two decades there have been huge advances in the ability of scientists to engineer biological systems, a field known as synthetic biology (sometimes shortened to SynBio). While this is a very welcome development when it comes to improving human health, it has also led to growing concern over malevolent use.
Unlike in the nuclear field, where access to key know-how and materials is limited to a small number of highly vetted scientists and in which massive resources are needed to surmount the engineering hurdles to weaponization, in the synthetic biology field access has significantly widened around the world to knowledge, tools, and materials that could be used to create bioweapons. These dynamics led scientists at the United States Military Academy at West Point to sound the alarm over the potential future bioterror threat posed by synthetic biology.
Writing in the August issue of CTC Sentinel, J. Kenneth Wickiser, Kevin J. O'Donovan, Lieutenant Colonel Michael Washington, Major Stephen Hummel, and Colonel F. John Burpo, who all serve at, or are affiliated with, the Department of Chemistry and Life Science at the United States Military Academy, warn that the economic and social impact of Covid-19 "has increased the chance that terrorist organizations will attempt to use biological agents to asymmetrically attack the United States and its allies."
Counterterrorism analysts share their concerns. Audrey Kurth Cronin, the author of the recent book "Power to the People: How Open Technological Innovation is Arming Tomorrow's Terrorists," noted in the CTC roundtable that "with the ability to alter DNA through easily accessible tools like CRISPR/Cas9, individuals can change known bacterial or viral pathogens to make them more dangerous. Far more people have access to the means to do this, much more rapidly than ever before."
In late 2019, Russell Travers, then-acting director of the US National Counterterrorism Center, stated that the potential terrorist use of biological weapons has "moved from a low probability eventuality to something that is considered much more likely."
In the last two decades scientists seeking to better understand and protect against the threat posed by viruses have managed to synthesize the entire poliovirus genome, reconstruct the 1918 pandemic flu virus, and develop a novel strain of the H5N1 avian flu virus which could be transmitted more easily among mammals.
While these breakthroughs were the result of US government funded efforts in state-of-the art laboratories, the West Point scientists say that that as the technology improves, the level of funding, education and skills necessary to engineer biological agents decreases -- making it easier for non-state actors to develop and deploy them as weapons.
They note how in 2016, "a small Canadian research group was successful in constructing infectious horsepox virus [a genetically distinct relative of smallpox] directly from genetic information obtained solely from a public database for the relatively modest sum of $100,000."
The Canadian team was working to improve public health, but the concern is that not all such undertakings in the future will be well-intentioned. Nor do would-be bioterrorists have to be rogue professional scientists. "As technology increases and spreads, those with a simple home laboratory system may be able to manipulate bacterial and viral genes without expert training or years of experience," write the West Point scientists. The scientists call for the threat posed by engineered pathogens to be "anticipated and planned for at all levels of government."
Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, a former commander of NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion, whose memoir "Chemical Warrior" has just been published, told me that action by the international community is urgently needed and overdue "if we are to prevent the potential Armageddon of an engineered highly virulent toxic pathogen."
(By way of comparison, he said: "Covid-19, a not very virulent but highly transmissible pathogen has brought the world to its knees, and is a huge neon advert to every dictator, despot, rogue state and terrorist who would do us harm.")
Noting "the huge increase in Level 4 containment laboratories in all parts of the globe, where the most deadly pathogens are stored," he is especially worried harmful biological materials could be stolen, spirited away by a rogue insider or accidentally be released.
Another urgent call for action comes from General Ret. Michael Nagata, who until last year was the strategy director at the US National Counterterrorism Center. "The US counterterrorism community has long held that the use of a biological agent of some kind for a major terrorist attack is not a matter of if, but when," General Nagata told the CTC roundtable. "The likelihood of a future terrorist using a highly potent, clandestinely produced, difficult to detect/identify/track, easily transportable and dispersible, and quite lethal biological weapon is rising significantly."
Nagata stated, "we should confront the question of whether the US counterterrorism community, our policymakers, congressional representatives, and the American people are informed and aware enough of the trajectory we are now on? I believe the answer is a resounding 'no.' During my career as a CT operational practitioner, all the way through my final years as the senior CT strategist at NCTC, the amount of energy, focus, and resourcing devoted to bioterrorism is a small fraction of what is still given today to more conventional threats."
Nagata added: "Like all things in life, we have choices to make about how prepared we wish to be. The question is, will we make them today before a disaster happens or be forced by catastrophe to make them tomorrow?"
Much of the work necessary to counter the bioterror threat from engineered viruses will also translate into greater preparedness for the next naturally occurring pandemic. Biosecurity should be the number one national security and public health priority for whoever resides in the White House during the next four years. The time for action is now.

Let's block ads! (Why?)



"Opinion" - Google News
September 29, 2020 at 07:18AM
https://ift.tt/2S95iuK

The most important national security question Trump and Biden need to address - CNN
"Opinion" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2FkSo6m
Shoes Man Tutorial
Pos News Update
Meme Update
Korean Entertainment News
Japan News Update

Search

Featured Post

I just paid $9.99 for a carton of 18 eggs. Will prices ever drop? | Opinion - Sacramento Bee

[unable to retrieve full-text content] I just paid $9.99 for a carton of 18 eggs. Will prices ever drop? | Opinion    Sacramento Bee ...

Postingan Populer