biologist
1652 stories
·
11 followers

I Am the Very Model of a New York Times Contrarian

1 Comment and 3 Shares
“It goes without saying that child molestation is a uniquely evil crime that merits the stiffest penalties. But … ” A.S. Seer/Library of Congress/Adam Cuerden I…
Read the whole story
notadoctor
7 days ago
reply
Oakland, CA
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
diannemharris
7 days ago
reply
OMG this is amazing!

A list of 25 Principles of Adult Behavior by John Perry Barlow

4 Comments and 17 Shares

Silicon Valley visionary John Perry Barlow died last night at the age of 70. When he was 30, the EFF founder (and sometime Grateful Dead lyricist) drew up a list of what he called Principles of Adult Behavior. They are:

1. Be patient. No matter what.
2. Don’t badmouth: Assign responsibility, not blame. Say nothing of another you wouldn’t say to him.
3. Never assume the motives of others are, to them, less noble than yours are to you.
4. Expand your sense of the possible.
5. Don’t trouble yourself with matters you truly cannot change.
6. Expect no more of anyone than you can deliver yourself.
7. Tolerate ambiguity.
8. Laugh at yourself frequently.
9. Concern yourself with what is right rather than who is right.
10. Never forget that, no matter how certain, you might be wrong.
11. Give up blood sports.
12. Remember that your life belongs to others as well. Don’t risk it frivolously.
13. Never lie to anyone for any reason. (Lies of omission are sometimes exempt.)
14. Learn the needs of those around you and respect them.
15. Avoid the pursuit of happiness. Seek to define your mission and pursue that.
16. Reduce your use of the first personal pronoun.
17. Praise at least as often as you disparage.
18. Admit your errors freely and soon.
19. Become less suspicious of joy.
20. Understand humility.
21. Remember that love forgives everything.
22. Foster dignity.
23. Live memorably.
24. Love yourself.
25. Endure.

Here’s what these principles meant to Barlow:

I don’t expect the perfect attainment of these principles. However, I post them as a standard for my conduct as an adult. Should any of my friends or colleagues catch me violating one of them, bust me.

You can read remembrances of Barlow from the EFF and from his friends Cory Doctorow and Steven Levy. The EFF’s Executive Director Cindy Cohn wrote:

Barlow was sometimes held up as a straw man for a kind of naive techno-utopianism that believed that the Internet could solve all of humanity’s problems without causing any more. As someone who spent the past 27 years working with him at EFF, I can say that nothing could be further from the truth. Barlow knew that new technology could create and empower evil as much as it could create and empower good. He made a conscious decision to focus on the latter: “I knew it’s also true that a good way to invent the future is to predict it. So I predicted Utopia, hoping to give Liberty a running start before the laws of Moore and Metcalfe delivered up what Ed Snowden now correctly calls ‘turn-key totalitarianism.’”

Barlow’s lasting legacy is that he devoted his life to making the Internet into “a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth … a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.”

Tags: Cindy Cohn   Cory Doctorow   John Perry Barlow   lists   Steven Levy
Read the whole story
notadoctor
8 days ago
reply
Oakland, CA
popular
10 days ago
reply
Share this story
Delete
4 public comments
StunGod
11 days ago
reply
That's a worthwhile list. I think I'll appropriate it.
Portland, Oregon, USA, Earth
TimidWerewolf
11 days ago
reply
Words to live by
dnorman
11 days ago
reply
fantastic guidelines. focus. give a shit. love.
Calgary
digdoug
11 days ago
reply
Mr Barlow would definitely give me a "D" as an adult. But I'm trying.
Louisville, KY

annyongchingu: nonbinary-black-king: sp0tlessmxnd: I have no...

1 Share


annyongchingu:

nonbinary-black-king:

sp0tlessmxnd:

I have no words for this.. Phenomenal

Tag your porn

Check out the guy’s channel bc it’s insane

Read the whole story
notadoctor
8 days ago
reply
Oakland, CA
Share this story
Delete

White Nationalist Movement: Myth Vs. Fact

1 Comment and 10 Shares

Over the past few years, the white nationalist movement in the U.S. has seen the addition of more members and received significant media coverage. The Onion debunks some common myths about white supremacism in America.


MYTH: The alt-right movement is secretly a neo-Nazi movement.

FACT: The alt-right movement is openly a neo-Nazi movement.


MYTH: White nationalist beliefs are mainstream now.

FACT: Noticing white nationalist beliefs is mainstream now.


MYTH: White supremacists hate people of color.

FACT: They’re not wild about women either.


MYTH: The movement’s goal is for whites to live separately in an ethno-state.

FACT: Idaho, Kentucky, Maine, Vermont, and New Hampshire already exist.


MYTH: White supremacists value preserving culture above all else.

FACT: Skrewdriver should not be considered culture under even the most generous interpretations of the term.


MYTH: White nationalism is just a fringe political movement.

FACT: Let’s not waste our whole day dissecting the word “fringe,” okay?


MYTH: President Trump has explicitly endorsed white nationalists.

FACT: He doesn’t endorse white nationalists; he just hangs out with them every weekend and most weeknights and is one himself.


MYTH: White nationalists believe discrimination against white people is worse than discrimination against any other group.

FACT: Holy shit, yeah, that’s true. They honestly believe that.

Read the whole story
popular
10 days ago
reply
notadoctor
11 days ago
reply
Oakland, CA
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
acdha
12 days ago
reply
“Not The Onion” is dead
Washington, DC

Labor Dept. Plan Could Let the Boss Pocket the Tip

1 Comment

But labor advocacy groups and former Obama administration officials argue that the regulation would legalize a vast income transfer from workers to employers, who would be permitted to pocket the tips.

“There is a lot of wage theft, tip stealing in restaurants and other sectors where workers depend on tips,” Christine Owens of the National Employment Law Project said. “This would be one more reason for employers to take workers’ tips and do whatever they want to do with them.”

A study by the Economic Policy Institute, a left-leaning think tank, estimated that the change would cost current tipped workers $5.8 billion a year in pay. It cast doubt on the idea that employers would use the money to compensate other workers better.

Heidi Shierholz, a former chief economist at the Labor Department who oversaw the study, said that under standard economic theory, employers were unlikely to pay workers more than needed to attract and retain them, which they are by definition already doing in most cases.

She predicted that if the regulation took effect and employers decided to share tips with these workers, “their base pay would be reduced and there would be no more take-home pay.”

The Labor Department estimated that the rule would affect about one million waiters and waitresses and over 200,000 bartenders. Workers in other industries, like hairstylists and manicurists, would also be affected.

Many tipped workers would not be affected, however, because the law would continue to prevent employers from taking the tips of those who earned less than the minimum wage. The law allows workers to be paid below the minimum wage as long as their tips make up the difference.

The proposed rule has generated a surprising amount of attention, attracting more than 180,000 comments from the public by Friday. That is roughly two-thirds the number of comments that the Obama administration’s proposal to increase overtime eligibility — which affected millions more workers and nearly every industry — generated after it was formally unveiled in 2015.

At least one major business group and some restaurant owners wrote that the rule would allow employers to put in place new pay practices that benefited both them and workers.

“It used to be that our servers typically made 1.5 to two times more than our kitchen staff, which is a big gap, but now they make two to four times more,” wrote Kim Snuggerud, who owns the Hilo Bay Cafe in Hawaii. “This gap can be better managed with this change in the regulations. The wage disparity creates many problems, from morale issues to higher turnover.”

In an interview, Ms. Snuggerud emphasized that she was not a supporter of President Trump and tended to favor minimum-wage increases and “big government.”

But many self-identified former restaurant owners, along with many workers and customers, wrote in to oppose the rule, saying it was unfair and might even amount to theft.

Adding to the controversy is the Labor Department’s failure to include a numerical analysis of the costs and benefits of the rule when it formally released the proposal. A longstanding executive order typically requires such an analysis for regulations that would have an economic impact of at least $100 million.

“When you put out a proposed rule, you have to put out the analysis you have that shows the impact of it,” said Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the committee that has oversight over the department. “I think, frankly, if they do that, people would be outraged.”

When it released the proposal, the department said that the omission was the result of “a lack of adequate data and the speculative nature of determining how employers, employees and customers would all react.”

But several former Labor Department officials said that while uncertainties and data limitations complicated any effort to measure costs and benefits, economists had well-established practices for addressing them.

“There are assumptions one has to make, but you build that into the analysis,” said David Weil, the former head of the division that enforces minimum-wage and overtime rules, which also produced this proposal. “On its face, it’s just a ridiculous assertion.”

Ms. Shierholz said it had taken her team of four primary researchers less than two weeks to generate their estimate.

A Labor Department spokesman said that the department had sought public input about how to estimate costs and benefits when it released its proposal and that it “intends to publish an informed cost-benefit analysis as part of any final rule.”

The spokesman pointed out that the 2011 rule also did not include a detailed cost-benefit analysis, though former Labor Department officials say that was because the rule codified existing policy and did not change policy.

On Thursday, Bloomberg Law reported that the department had, in fact, produced an economic analysis, but that Labor Secretary Alexander Acosta and his aides had chosen not to release it after it showed that the cost to tipped workers could be substantial.

The department declined to comment. But two former Labor Department officials said they had been briefed on the analysis by people currently at the department and echoed this account.

Michael Hancock, another former top official in the division that produced the proposal, said he found it unimaginable that the department would not have produced an economic analysis because officials at the Office of Management and Budget, who must typically sign off on new regulations, would refuse to do so without one.

“At least during my time, O.M.B. jealously guarded the executive order,” said Mr. Hancock, who worked at the department for two decades beginning in 1995. “They always insisted if it’s even close to the threshold that you’ve got to do an economic analysis, no matter how challenging.”

The restaurant industry contends that the Obama-era regulation is illegal because it goes beyond what the underlying law supports. It asked the Supreme Court to review the Obama rule after appellate courts in different parts of the country split on the issue.

“I would say the process was not followed in 2011,” Mr. Amador said. “If there’s any flaw here, it’s that an illegal regulation passed in 2011.”

But Mr. Hancock said the proposed change would be highly vulnerable to a legal challenge if completed because omitting an economic analysis denied the public a chance to comment.

“The rule-making process is designed to give the public an opportunity to have their voices heard,” he said. “If you don’t include the economic analysis that underlies all of this, the public never had an opportunity to do that. I think it’s going to create legal problems.”

Continue reading the main story
Read the whole story
notadoctor
15 days ago
reply
Can't let anyone keep what change they scrape together with mere labor when those coins could permanently reunite with the rest of the wealth, am I right fellow job creators, a ho ho ho
Oakland, CA
Share this story
Delete

Unlearning How White People Ask Personal Questions

2 Comments and 5 Shares

When I met my fiance’s African-American stepfather, things did not start well. Stumbling for some way to start a conversation with a man whose life was unlike mine in almost every respect, I asked “So, what do you do for a living?”.

He looked down at his shoes and said quietly “Well, I’m unemployed”.

At the time I cringed inwardly and recognized that I had committed a terrible social gaffe which seemed to scream “Hey prospective in-law, since I am probably going to be a member of your family real soon, I thought I would let you know up front that I am a completely insensitive jackass”. But I felt even worse years later when I came to appreciate the racial dimension of how I had humiliated my stepfather-in-law to be.

For that painful but necessary bit of knowledge I owe a white friend who throughout her childhood attended Chicago schools in a majority Black district. She passed along a marvelous book that helped her make sense of her own inter-racial experiences. It was Thomas Kochman’s Black and White Styles in Conflict, and it had a lasting effect on me. One of the many things I learned from this anthropological treasure trove of a book is how race affects the personal questions we feel entitled to ask and the answers we receive in response.

My question to my wife-to-be’s stepfather was at the level of content a simple conversation starter (albeit a completely failed one). But at the level of process, it was an expression of power. Kochman’s book sensitized me to middle class whites’ tendency to ask personal questions without first considering whether they have a right to know the personal details of someone else’s life. When we ask someone what they do for a living for example, we are also asking for at least partial information on their income, their status in the class hierarchy and their perceived importance in the world. Unbidden, that question can be quite an invasion. The presumption that one is entitled to such information is rarely made explicit, but that doesn’t prevent it from forcing other people to make a painful choice: Disclose something they want to keep secret or flatly refuse to answer (which oddly enough usually makes them, rather than the questioner, look rude).

Kochman’s book taught me a new word, which describes an indirect conversational technique he studied in urban Black communities: “signifying”. He gives the example (as I recall it, 25 years on) of a marriage-minded black woman who is dating a man who pays for everything on their very nice dates. She wonders if he has a good job. But instead of grilling him with “So what do you do for a living?”, she signifies “Whatever oil well you own, I hope it keeps pumping!”.

Her signifying in this way is a sensitive, respectful method to raise the issue she wants to know about because unlike my entitled direct question it keeps the control under the person whose personal information is of interest. Her comment could be reasonably responded to by her date as a funny joke, a bit of flirtation, or a wish for good luck. But of course it also shows that if the man freely chooses to reveal something like “Things look good for me financially: I’m a certified public accountant at a big, stable firm”, he can do so and know she will be interested.

Since reading Kochman’s book, I have never again directly asked anyone what they do for a living. Instead my line is “So how do you spend your time?”. Some people (particularly middle class white people) choose to answer that question in the bog standard way by describing their job. But other people choose to tell me about the compelling novel they are reading, what they enjoy about being a parent, the medical treatment they are getting for their bad back, whatever. Any of those answers flow just as smoothly from the signification in a way they wouldn’t from a direct question about their vocation.

From the perspective of ameliorating all the racial pain in the world, this change in my behavior is a grain of sand in the Sahara. But I pass this experience along nonetheless, for two reasons. First, very generally, if any of us human beings can easily engage in small kindnesses, we should. Second, specific to race, if those of us who have more power can learn to refrain from using it to harm people in any way – major or minor — we should do that too.

Read the whole story
notadoctor
15 days ago
reply
Skillful signifying is done lightly so as not to sound sarcastic, but even when ham handed it's so much less aggressive than direct questioning.
Oakland, CA
Share this story
Delete
1 public comment
jepler
15 days ago
reply
"Since reading Kochman’s book, I have never again directly asked anyone what they do for a living. Instead my line is “So how do you spend your time?”. Some people (particularly middle class white people) choose to answer that question in the bog standard way by describing their job. But other people choose to tell me about the compelling novel they are reading, what they enjoy about being a parent, the medical treatment they are getting for their bad back, whatever. Any of those answers flow just as smoothly from the signification in a way they wouldn’t from a direct question about their vocation."
Earth, Sol system, Western spiral arm
Next Page of Stories