2,064 Matching Annotations
  1. Oct 2015
  2. Aug 2015
    1. But politics is about who shows up. The fossil fuel interests that are threatened show up. Nerds like Urban, vaguely repulsed by politics, do not.

      A thousand times yes that "politics is about who shows up."

    2. So perhaps a simpler way of putting the conclusion is that the Republican Party is motivated by a general philosophy while Democrats are motivated by specific policies they want to achieve.

      This is also the source of so much hate toward Republicans spouted by Democrats. It's not uncommon to hear about Republicans who "vote against their own interest". However, voting against one's own interests is a radical and amazing thing to do. If everyone who held significant privilege and power voted against their own interests we might have a more equitable world.

    3. The right-wing base has a coherent position on climate change: It's a hoax, so we shouldn't do anything about it. The left-wing base has a coherent position: It's happening, so we should do something about it. The "centrist" position, shared by conservative Democrats and the few remaining moderate Republicans, is that it's happening but we shouldn't do anything about it. That's not centrist in any meaningful ideological sense; instead, like most areas of overlap between the parties, it is corporatist.

      The worst possible outcome.

    4. What's really being measured is heterogeneity of opinion, not centrism.
    5. There are two broad narratives about politics that can be glimpsed between the lines here. Both are, in the argot of the day, problematic.

      The two paragraphs that follow are spot on. Nerds think government doesn't do anything right and they see government as this monolith thing apart from themselves rather than something they can and should work to affect, rather than circumvent.

      One thing I got out of reading Graeber's "Democracy Project" was the idea that it is not rational people that inhabit the middle of the political spectrum. Most people are more radical than the media makes it seem. The media reinforces the narrative that if you hold strong political opinions you are a radical. Your neighbors think you're crazy. You should probably just follow the herd, more.

      While there are definitely fundamentalists at the political extremes, there are also great thinkers.

    6. A voter with one extreme conservative opinion (round up and expel all illegal immigrants immediately) and one extreme liberal opinion (institute a 100 percent tax on wealth over a million dollars) will be marked, for the purposes of polling, as a moderate.
  3. Jun 2015
  4. May 2015
    1. To achieve this, Climate Feedback—less an organization at this point than an amorphous gathering of climate scientists, oceanographers, and atmosperic physicists—is making use of a browser plugin from the nonprofit Hypothes.is to annotate climate journalism on the Web.
    1. What killed the annotated web was a lack of interest. Few could be bothered to download and install the plug-in
    1. He and his colleagues are keenly interested in the ability to annotate scholarship online, he says; Mellon has made serious investments in annotation tools and the development of open annotation standards by the university community and projects like Hypothes.is, which just received a two-year, $752,000 grant from the foundation to look into digital annotation in humanities and social-science scholarship.
  5. Apr 2015
    1. Developer

      testing to see if i can search for annotated text within the page - doesn't seem like it

  6. Feb 2015
    1. Forbudet må bort. Regulering må til. Når det skjer,og bare når det skjer vil vi "vinne" "krigen mot narkotika". Fordi krigen mot narkotika er egentlig et spørsmål til staten: Vil vi styre dette,eller la "kriminelle" styre dette? Hva er best for folket? En regulering som innebærer aldersgrenser og kvalitetssikring er klart det beste for folket. Nå er det bare opp til folket å se det selv om de ikke røyker weed eller setter sprøyter.

      Good luck.

  7. Feb 2014
    1. antive issue : A substantive statement of the issue consists of two parts -- i. the point of law in dispute ii. the key facts of the case re lating to that point of law in dispute (legally relevant facts) You must include the key facts from the case so that the issue is specific to that case. Typically, the disputed issue involves how the court applied some element of the pertinent rule to the facts of the specific case. Resolving the issue will determine the court’s disposition of the case.
      • the point of law in dispute
      • the key facts of the case relating to that point of law in dispute (legally relevant facts)