Slog

Slog Music

Music, Nightlife,
and Drinks

Sunday, January 12, 2014

The Sunday Morning News

Posted by on Sun, Jan 12, 2014 at 9:39 AM

You Want $15 an Hour Wages? Then You Want This Rally: Social movements drive social change. 'Nuff said. Be there today. 2 pm, Labor Temple, Hall One, 2800 First Ave.

Eastbound Snoqualmie Pass, Closed: "To remove vehicles that slid off the roadway."

Two Bombings in Baghdad: The violence doesn't seem to be letting up.

Gmail Is Becoming Facebook: Ewww... People can now look up on Google+ and send you an email without knowing your email address.

Showdown in Bangkok: Demonstrators say they're going to shut down the capital city for between 15-20 days to protest the government's corruption. Officials say they're deploying 14,000 troops. Rumors of an impending coup abound. Such tension. Wow.

"Freedom Industries" Leaks Toxic Chemical Into West Virginia Water Supply: 300,000 people still can't use their tap water while the state and company scramble to determine how much of the chemical—4-methylcyclohexane methanol—has leaked out and into the water.

House Democrats Hostile to the Trans-Pacific Partnership: The Dems say they're opposed to the Obama administration's attempt to "fast-track" legislation that would represent one of the biggest and most secretive "free trade" deals since NAFTA.

9136 To 1: That's the number of peer-reviewed authors of scientific papers who support the notion of man-made global warming versus how many explicitly deny it. This is what we mean by scientific consensus.

"It's difficult to make shit up about the echidna because it's so damn weird." The animal with the four-headed penis:

 

Comments (33) RSS

Oldest First Unregistered On Registered On Add a comment
1
Must scare the republicans... female echidnas run a train of males up the same hole that poop comes out.

http://scientopia.org/blogs/scicurious/2…
the echidna just has one all purpose hole, the cloaca, through which poop and urine go out, eggs come out, and sperm goes in.

As the penis fully extends, it actually RETRACTS one half of the penis. Two heads stay out, while two others shrink back in. And about 20 seconds after full extension, the little guy is done.
The full erection is actually almost 25% of the male's body length. I guess size counts.

Echidna males face a LOT of competition for female attention (apparently males will line up to get at an estrous female, with the most dominant male in front. The line can get up to 11 echidnas long. No express lane).
Posted by ChefJoe on January 12, 2014 at 10:06 AM · Report this
2
But do those google+ emails go to your gmail account? Because I have one, but I prefer to use hotmail instead. Go figure.
Posted by treehugger on January 12, 2014 at 10:12 AM · Report this
3
Scientific American has gone really far downhill. That global warming piece reads like a Jezebel post, and as evidence features exactly one Pinterest gif. That ought to convince the skeptics.
Posted by Billy Chav on January 12, 2014 at 10:36 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 4
@3 Convince the skeptics? They've already made up their minds. And facts have nothing to do with it for them. A true skeptic would already have seen the evidence and be a skeptic no more.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 12, 2014 at 10:49 AM · Report this
5
I think a more interesting statistic about global warming would be the number of economists who think we can limit carbon emissions w/o destroying our economy.
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 12, 2014 at 10:50 AM · Report this
seatackled 6
I downloaded Chrome a couple of days ago and I just uninstalled it last night. Google ain't what it used to be.
Posted by seatackled on January 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM · Report this
7
@4 I think a lot of global warming 'skeptics' know very well what's happening, but understand that little can be done about it. So why worry?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 12, 2014 at 10:53 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 8
@7 The first thing we need to do to protect the economy is to keep your failed Republican pals from elected office. And, just by coincidence, that's also what "can be be done about it" when it comes to the environment.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 12, 2014 at 11:14 AM · Report this
raindrop 9
@8: Sorry, but the democrats don't hold the copyright on protecting the environment. After all, Nixon started the EPA. Since Nixon, bleeding heart tree hugging Democrats have added fuel to our forest fires (literally), failed to pass an Energy bill, fail to create more cleaner coal plants, and waste millions on wind and solar technologies that have yet to prove their worth on a mass scale. Meanwhile, we still burn fossil fuels as well we should because there's no proof that reducing CO2 emissions will change the climate. The article doesn't even address that.
Posted by raindrop on January 12, 2014 at 11:51 AM · Report this
Pope Peabrain 10
@9 Ostrich, re-insert your head in the sand.
Posted by Pope Peabrain on January 12, 2014 at 12:29 PM · Report this
Urgutha Forka 11
The Google+ gmail thing, from what I read, just sends an email (I assume with an @gmail address) to that person but doesn't tell the sender what the email address is.

So the receiver could just ignore it and the sender would never find out the actual email address.

Not that that's a great thing, but at least google isn't broadcasting your email address blindly out to all the penis-pill spammers to attack you with.
Posted by Urgutha Forka on January 12, 2014 at 12:44 PM · Report this
raindrop 12
@1: Republicans are no more frightened over all purpose orifice than Democrats are delighted over a multi-headed penis.
Posted by raindrop on January 12, 2014 at 1:08 PM · Report this
13
Seriously important news, from the News Droid

A cool Jupiter graphic:

http://img.gawkerassets.com/img/19c85zy2…

Let us not forget the tragic death of Aaron Swartz (and his battles for freedom of the press and free speech in America):

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/20…

There's that pesky, evil, and career-ending (not to mention employment-ending) TPP once again:

http://boingboing.net/2014/01/11/trans-p…

Poverty cartoon of the day:

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/f…

Why Seattle is such an important city:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/12/co…
Posted by sgt_doom on January 12, 2014 at 1:19 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 14
What the illustrious Pope @ 10 said.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 12, 2014 at 4:34 PM · Report this
venomlash 15
@7: O ye of little faith, read up on geoengineering. We scientifically-inclined types aren't content to fiddle while Rome burns.
Posted by venomlash on January 12, 2014 at 5:23 PM · Report this
Max Solomon 16
@9: "there's no proof that reducing CO2 emissions will change the climate."

i agree, there's no "proof". let's conduct an experiment then. let's reduce them by 50% and see what happens. if that doesn't work, try another 50% and see what happens.
Posted by Max Solomon on January 12, 2014 at 5:30 PM · Report this
Last of the Time Lords 17
It's true, too much "Freedom" isn't good for you!!
Posted by Last of the Time Lords on January 12, 2014 at 5:48 PM · Report this
18
@5 I'll bet they would be the same economists who were telling us everything was groovy up to the day before the housing bubble burst and who are still claiming that banking is over regulated. Do any of these morons know what a 2 m sea level rise will do to our economy? ( do you know how many trillions worth of infrastructure would be affected?)

@7 The effects of a 6 deg Celsius temp rise are very different than that of a 2 deg Celsius temp rise (like civilization collapse or not difference), so we can clearly mediate climate change by reducing our carbon emissions today and leaving unconventional fossil fuels into the ground.

Claiming that there is nothing we can do about climate change or that attempting to do something about it would destroy the economy has always been an integral part of climate change denial rhetoric.
Posted by anon1256 on January 12, 2014 at 5:56 PM · Report this
raindrop 19
@18: No, I know that I often slip into hyperbole, but what you said is illogical. The debate is not whether the condition exists, but what the remedy (if any) is. To equate the debate over the remedy as a subset of the debate of the condition is wrong.
Posted by raindrop on January 12, 2014 at 6:14 PM · Report this
20
@19 - I am only stating what has been my experience with climate change denialists for the last 10+ years. Anti-climate change remediation types like you have used arguments ranging from a) it's not happening to d) it'll kill the economy to fix it, passing by b) it's happening but it's natural, and c) it's happening and we are responsible but the consequences are minor (ala Lomborg). In other words, fossil fools like you are opportunistically using any arguments to prevent reducing fossil fuel use and switching over to renewables.

To put it bluntly, the arguments of fossil fools aren't principled since they'll regurgitate any talking point to prevent climate change remediation even if they know nothing about it. Don't pretend you haven't claimed at some point that modern climate change was natural in your history of denial. Your stupid comment above about "proofs that reducing Carbon emissions will affect climate change" shows that you are a denialist because you just claimed that carbon emission have no effect on climate. I really resent ignorant people like you who make self-serving claims about climate and carbon emissions as if they knew anything about the science. Once again, you should be ashamed of yourself.
Posted by anon1256 on January 12, 2014 at 6:50 PM · Report this
21
@15 I'm all for developing new ways to generate power. At some point we're going to have to stop using fossil fuels because the oil is going to run out. However, I don't think science has yet devised an energy source that works anywhere near as well as fossil fuels do. Am I wrong?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 12, 2014 at 7:59 PM · Report this
22
Let the Troll explain Climate Change to you girls:

When it began Al Gore and the Enviromentalists framed the issue in terms of "evil conservatives with their SUVs and factories are destroying the planet".

Real Americans weren't having any of that shit.

So it doesn't matter what your studies find or your 97% of scientists fall in line to parrot; the answer is and will remain; Fuck You.

call us deniers or whateverthefuck you like, we quit giving a shit what you say years ago.

besides, if the oceans rise it will flood liberal costal cities and that ain't bad at all in our book.

so, let us repeat; Fuck You. Suck It. Drown in Your Rising Oceans or Freeze Your Asses Off.

We.Don't.Give.A.Fuck.
Posted by Cut Your Own Carbon Footprint; Fucking Hypocrites... on January 12, 2014 at 8:26 PM · Report this
23
oh.

and Suck your Scientific Consensus.

then Shove It Up Your Ass.
Posted by Suck It and Shove It. Repeat. on January 12, 2014 at 8:30 PM · Report this
Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In 24
21, your post might mean something if the fossil fuel magnates that you support who rake in trillion-dollar profits aren't spending that money to actively suppress alternative energy from emerging. If that money was spent into energy research, we'd have a solution w/in a year, two tops.

but don't worry: economies don't exist if you can't feed people. the starvation will force the issue, long after there is anything we can do about it. I sure hope conservatives taste better than their ideas.
Posted by Some Old Nobodaddy Logged In on January 12, 2014 at 8:35 PM · Report this
25
24

optimistic.

but how many conservatives do you even know?

the reality is you will end up on some barbeque in the hood.....
Posted by Big Tent Cook-off on January 12, 2014 at 8:49 PM · Report this
26
@24 We may get to this point eventually . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gb4eZ7Z5y…

In the mean time lets stay positive, like those cool dudes in REM . . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0GFRcFm-…

Seriously, what are oil companies doing to suppress the emergence of alternative energy?
Posted by Ken Mehlman on January 12, 2014 at 9:03 PM · Report this
raindrop 27
@24: Just like you. @21 asked you a pointed rather scientific question and you went off in multiple political pontifications over it. You can..., relax, at bit, you know.
Posted by raindrop on January 12, 2014 at 9:50 PM · Report this
NaFun 28
@21 Fossil fuels work great but are dirty as fuck. We're gonna have to switch whether its better or not.
Posted by NaFun http://www.dancesafe.org on January 12, 2014 at 10:50 PM · Report this
29
Why does the question of economy even come into it? If we were on a sinking ship we would try to fix the hole that was damning us by any means necessary. "Oh solar power just slows the water coming in down? Well fuck that! We need to wait until we have a complete and perfect fix before we do anything! And will someone think of all the jobs bailing out water we would lose. Not to mention how those decisions might affect the profits of the multinational companies blowing new holes in the ship. Won't someone please think of the giant multinational companies." There that's how you anti science dicks sound.
Posted by Kansas boy on January 12, 2014 at 11:08 PM · Report this
Pridge Wessea 30
Deflection on aisle 27.
Posted by Pridge Wessea on January 13, 2014 at 5:31 AM · Report this
31
Conservatives will respond to the "science" of Global Warming when HomoLiberals start adopting the CDC's guidelines for healthy sex-positive life style choices.

OK?
Posted by SUV, bathhouse; what's the difference? on January 13, 2014 at 6:57 AM · Report this
32
Relax? after you and your kind have once again demonstrated you understood nothing of climate change and didn't bother to acknowledge what was blatantly false about your arguments even though it was pointed out to you, but went on as if nothing happened? Dude, you don't even appear to realize that claiming "we have no proof that reducing emissions will affect climate" amounts to climate change theory denial. What are we supposed to tell you that will make you realize you don't know what you are talking about? Or is it that you already know it but posturing for your cause is all that matters to you?
Posted by anon1256 on January 13, 2014 at 9:02 AM · Report this
venomlash 33
@21: GEOENGINEERING IS NOT ABOUT RENEWABLE ENERGY.
Geoengineering is saying: "Okay, CO2 levels are going to be fairly high. What can we do to mitigate the effects of that change?"
To reduce ocean acidification and keep marine productivity healthy, we could spread powdered calcium carbonate or similar alkaline minerals over upwellings and other marine biodiversity hotspots. To prevent excessive warming, we could pump seawater microdroplets or sulfide particles into the upper atmosphere, scattering incoming sunlight just enough to keep the Earth from heating up too much. More ambitious proposals have even included a swarm of microsatellites deployed at the SEL1 point to act as a controllable sunshade! Even if we can't stop CO2 levels from rising in the short term, THERE ARE THINGS WE CAN DO. But in order to do them, we need people to stop being so damn anti-science.

@26: For starters, Big Energy is fighting tooth and nail to suppress popular acceptance of climate change. They also fund politicians who are extremely unfriendly towards research grants going to alternative energy research.
Posted by venomlash on January 13, 2014 at 10:12 AM · Report this

Add a comment

Advertisement
 

Want great deals and a chance to win tickets to the best shows in Seattle? Join The Stranger Presents email list!


All contents © Index Newspapers, LLC
1535 11th Ave (Third Floor), Seattle, WA 98122
Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Takedown Policy