Just chasing votes? You live in a world where politicians don’t do that? C’mon man, where? Don’t keep it a secret!
They could have just asked. Now they’ll never know.
Can’t we just build a wall around this "WIFI?"
And then make WIFI pay for it?
That seems to be a viable political stance.
3 Likes
There is zero evidence from any of the “sufferers”, studies, or meta studies. Something can/may change in the future, but the current arguments offer no sane reason for concern and the main allergy claimants cannot replicate symptoms under observation. They deserve no respect.
4 Likes
These are her professed beliefs which makes her a harmful crank, how is that moving any goalposts? It’s central to her ungroundedness.
5 Likes
I just forced myself to watch this debate between Stein and Johnson. It was kind of painful, and I’m not just talking about the moderator’s Bill Shatner-like delivery. I don’t recommend watching it except maybe as a sleep aid.
Vaccines and wifi didn’t come up, but global warming did, and while both agreed that man-made climate change is real, Johnson thinks (a) the president can’t do anything about it, and (b) the free market is already solving it(!) He also opposed cap-and-trade, wants to shrink FEMA, and thinks the gas shortages that were taking place when the debate was held were due to the government mistakenly not allowing price gouging.
(Stein didn’t stray far from what you’d expect from a GP candidate, she did at one point suggest that scientists were partly to blame for global warming - it made me think of the Italian geologist prosecution.)
GMOs also came up, Johnson came out (surprisingly) in favor of food labeling, the reason being he has a Gluten allergy. I would have thought he was smart enough to be able to notice the hypocrisy of a libertarian supporting regulation when it directly affects him.
Both of them were kind of fatuous in their answers on economic policy. I’ll sum up the 1st 41 minutes. Johnson: eliminate the IRS and drop corporate income tax to 0. Stein: No, don’t do that.
If it sounds like I think Stein ‘won’ the debate, well, no, she was so nonspecific or evasive on everything that Johnson’s experience made him seem more on the ball. I don’t think her evasive answer discussed upthread on vaccines is necessarily her trying to pander, I think it might just be the way she addresses direct questions. (For example, Johnson asked her point blank if if she “thinks government should take over the internet,” her answer was “I hear you asking whether I support net neutrality,” and then she discussed that instead of what he asked.)
Anyway, just putting that out there. I don’t think either of them is qualified to be president, and neither of them is very satisfactory on science.
16 Likes
I wasn’t my intent to put words in anyone’s mouth but my own-- Also, I do agree with Karl Popper’s view of falsifiability. Mine’s a response to any general attitude that someone would have to be a crackpot to harbor concerns, especially where prior studies don’t really model actual long-term use or exposure cases well enough to seem credible (or at all). In that context, it becomes for me more about protesting an unscientific faith or trust in something’s inherent safety as apparently espoused by others. That is what I’m pointing out. A paucity of consistency how?
1 Like
Most people didn’t know how toxic it was until the 1980s. Known by academics and known by the average schoolkid, that took a while. It started with researched by way of science.
That you know of the toxicity of lead is a victory of democracy and public health science. It’s a heavily regulated material, since 1973. You know something that most people before the 1950s did not know, that a compound invented in 1854 was toxic and poisoning them and their drinking water. Most people know it’s bad now.
So, I don’t see the point in naysaying and ridiculing people who want to make sure it’s not dangerous. They’re the same ones who want to make sure a lot of things are less dangerous or, as the science may show, not dangerous at all.
as an aside: I really don’t think Jill Stein is someone likely to be unaware of the differences between particle and electromagnetic radiation.
4 Likes
What massive ballot tampering? Did I miss something?
2 Likes
I hope that’s Tor Johnson. There’s an obvious VP pick, too.
2 Likes
That’s a pretty low bar.
9 Likes
Stein just announced her VP , actually.
1 Like
Just like her treatment of homeopathy:
For treatments like homeopathy, which isn’t regulated, just because it’s not tested DOESN’T mean it’s safe. “Natural” remedies need the same testing and scrutiny, again by folks without a vested interest in the system.
Why can’t she just say: “a homeopathic medicine is as useful as water-- which is all it is.”
8 Likes
Uh… noo… I don’t think so…
I haven’t really commented a lot on the Green Party good or bad.
I did that for years. Lived in basements for a good portion of my life. Look how I turned out! Let this be a warning.
7 Likes
Looking back, I have been unkind to you.
I’ve have some pretty tough exchanges with people over cell phone safety, so my response to you was too formulaic and not considerate of your post…
You’re clearly a reasonable person trying to make sense of a confusing world.
Wishing you the best,
–bizmail
6 Likes
The children wouldn’t be in danger if they were all getting their Wi-Fi vaccines.
A little Twitter can help inoculate against a bad case of the Reddits.
11 Likes
So much for courting the Sanders voters:
This is the world that a President Sanders promises—continued war crimes from the sky with drone strikes and Saudi led terror in support of the Western imperial project.
“The contemptuous gang of corrupt Arab monarchies known as the Gulf Cooperation Council benefit from the diplomatic cover and military support from the equally contemptuous U.S. state.”
This is not to suggest that everyone who might find a way to support Sanders is a closet racist and supporter of imperialism. I know plenty of folks of all backgrounds who “feel the Bern.” There is, however, an objective logic to their uncritical support that they cannot escape and which I believe represents the ongoing crisis of radicalism in the U.S. and Europe.
The Sanders’ campaign, like the Obama phenomenon before it, does not offer a program or strategic direction for addressing the current crisis and contradictions of Western capitalist societies. Instead, it is an expression of the moral and political crisis of the Western radicalism. This crisis – which is reflective of the loss of direction needed to inform, vision, and fashion a creative program for radical change – is even more acute in the U.S. than Western Europe. Yet, what unites both radical experiences is a tacit commitment to Eurocentrism and normalized white supremacy.
In their desperate attempt to defend Sanders and paint his critics as dogmatists and purists, the Sanders supporters have not only fallen into the ideological trap of a form of narrow “left” nativism, but also the white supremacist ethical contradiction that reinforces racist cynicism in which some lives are disposable for the greater good of the West.
And as much as the ‘Sandernistas ’ attempt to disarticulate Sanders “progressive” domestic policies from his documented support for empire (even the Obamaite aphorism “The perfect is the enemy of the good” is unashamedly deployed), it should be obvious that his campaign is an ideological prop – albeit from a center/left position – of the logic and interests of the capitalist-imperialist settler state.
(From Ajuma Barak’s blog.)
11 Likes
I’m willing to give $10,000 to anyone who proves to me that they can detect wifi signals without the aid of a device. I’ll even let them bring a friend to prove that no shenanigans are pulled. If they can’t, I’ll take a small $100 fee.
All they have to do is correctly tell me when I turn on and off the wifi a few times. That’s it.
I await my riches.
8 Likes
