Genius | Song Lyrics & Knowledge

What Kind of Creatures Are We? Edward Ongweso JR – 104 Book Challenge (2015)

Author

8 years

[W]e should recognize how little we understand the world and should also realize that it doesn’t matter whether we can conceive of how the world works … [P]hysical science no longer seeks to provide pictures of how the world works, that is, “a model functioning on essentially classical lines,” but only seeks to provide a “way of looking at the fundamental laws which makes their self-consistency obvious.”

Adapted from the 2013 Dewey lectures he gave at Columbia University, this book serves as a grand tour of the philosophical implications of language and cognition. It’s not only an overview of the field of linguistics, but places Chomsky’s own work on the chopping block along theories that challenge or explore different areas tangentially related to language. Chomsky has always maintained his linguistics bear no connection to his politics, but here the contrary is on full display. Engrossing explorations shine light on surprising links between the human capacity for language, liberty, and the prospects for a free and just society.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

><small>[W]e should recognize how little we understand the world and should also realize that it doesn't matter whether we can conceive of how the world works ... [P]hysical science no longer seeks to provide pictures of how the world works, that is, "a model functioning on essentially classical lines," but only seeks to provide a "way of looking at the fundamental laws which makes their self-consistency obvious."</small>

<small>Adapted from the 2013 Dewey lectures he gave at Columbia University, this book serves as a grand tour of the philosophical implications of language and cognition. It's not only an overview of the field of linguistics, but places Chomsky's own work on the chopping block along theories that challenge or explore different areas tangentially related to language. Chomsky has always maintained his linguistics bear no connection to his politics, but here the contrary is on full display. Engrossing explorations shine light on surprising links between the human capacity for language, liberty, and the prospects for a free and just society.</small>

report abuse

A UK government spokesperson said:“This changes nothing. We completely reject any claim that Julian Assange is a victim of arbitrary detention. The UK has already made clear to the UN that we will formally contest the working group’s opinion. UN panel calls on UK and Sweden to end Julian Assange's 'deprivation of liberty' | Media | The Guardian

81,131

8 years

As noted by the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention:

The Opinions of the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention are legally-binding to the extent that they are based on binding international human rights law, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)…The Opinions of the WGAD are also considered as authoritative by prominent international and regional judicial institutions, including the European Court of Human Rights.

It would make sense that the United Kingdom, as both an observer of international law, a member of the United Nations and of the European Court of Human Rights, be under an obligation to respect the decision of the United Nations group but alas…

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

54,235

8 years

Sure, but read that statement carefully—they’re not actually binding, just suggestions “based on international human rights law” and “considered authoritative by some judicial institutions”.

Upvote +2 Downvote

81,131

8 years

It’s binding in the same way the Human Rights Charter is binding. It was put forth by a body that every member said they would obey and defer to for international matters that don’t seriously neglect sovereignty. The expectation is that you follow the recommendation especially when you force other nations to.

The reality is like you said that they are suggestions, though. The Human Rights Charter is for the most part applied when possible or convenient, not to mention nations ratify parts of treaties as “self-excluding” where they pretend certain parts don’t exist.

Upvote +1 Downvote

22,936

8 years

not to bring down the level of discourse here, but tbf there is a precedent for dismissing the UN’s (negligibly enforced) authority…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=084irEAQrLQ

Upvote +0 Downvote

Show 2 more replies

...tive question. The president tried to paint a rosy picture of jobs. And you know, he's right. If you're a Washington lobbyist, if you make your money in and around Washington, things are doing great. The millionaires and billionaires are doing great under Obama. But we have the lowest percentage of Americans working today of any year since 1977. Median wages have stagnated. And the Obama-Clinton economy has left behind the working men and women of this count... 6th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant - The Washington Post

81,131

8 years

Take, for example, the network of wealthy donors that fund Ted Cruz’s 2016 campaign.

A Republican strategist well connected to the donor world added: “When he’s with major donors, they expect the guy they see with all the red meat, but they instead see an intelligent, buttoned-down lawyer with real bona fides. He will say things like, basically, ‘This is politics — you’ve got go out there and sell and perform.’ ”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/cruzs-secret-fundraising-strength-a-network-of-wealthy-donors/2015/10/26/d170532e-7c0b-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

In that State of the Union, President Obama didn't so much as mention the 10 sailors that had been captured by Iran. President Obama's preparing to send $100 billion or more to the Ayatollah Khamenei. And I'll tell you, it was heartbreaking. 6th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant - The Washington Post

81,131

8 years

This has been refuted in its many forms time after time after time whether it’s been $100 billion, $150 billion, or $5 trillion.

First of all, Iran is recovering $100 billion of assets and oil revenues, frozen in foreign banks. No one is sending Iran money.

Secondly, no one even knows how much Iran is specifically getting but we know the range is “from $29 billion to as much as $150 billion.”

Third, Iran has financial obligations to nations that supported it during the sanctions. After it pays off those obligations, it will have–after all sanctions are removed–recovered $56 billion.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

This has been refuted in its many forms [time](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/treasury-iran-150-billion-nuclear-deal_55b8dc41e4b0224d88348e1c) after [time](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/aug/16/donald-trump/donald-trump-iran-gets-keep-150-billion-even-if-us/) after [time](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/sep/16/mike-huckabee/huckabee-us-giving-iran-equivalent-5-trillion/) whether it's been $100 billion, $150 billion, or **$5 trillion**.

First of all, Iran is *recovering* $100 billion of assets and oil revenues, [frozen in foreign banks](http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2015/07/16/423562391/lifting-sanctions-will-release-100-billion-to-iran-then-what). No one is sending Iran money.

Secondly, [no one even knows how much Iran is specifically getting](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/world/middleeast/conflicting-claims-cloud-irans-financial-gain-in-nuclear-deal.html) but we know the range is "from $29 billion to as much as $150 billion."

Third, Iran has financial obligations to nations that supported it during the sanctions. After it pays off those obligations, it will have--**after all sanctions are removed**--recovered [$56 billion](https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/08/05/remarks-president-iran-nuclear-deal).

report abuse

The fact is, there's a number of things that the next president is going to have to do to clean up this mess. The first thing is we have to strengthen our alliances around the world. And the best way to do that is to start talking to our allies again and having them be able to count on our word. 6th Republican debate transcript, annotated: Who said what and what it meant - The Washington Post

81,131

8 years

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

Today, technology doesn’t just replace jobs on the assembly line, but any job where work can be automated. Companies in a global economy can locate anywhere, and they face tougher competition. As a result, workers have less leverage for a raise. Companies have less loyalty to their communities. And mo... Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery State of the Union Address | whitehouse.gov

81,131

8 years

Over the next 20 years 47% of all workers in the US will be replaced by physical and digital automation.

This is a concern largely because while technology generally creates more jobs than it destroys, many of the jobs created in the recovery from the Great Recession have been labor-intensive, low-income jobs that would be the first to go with automation.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

22,936

8 years

Per the linked article from The Guardian,

…analysts from investment bank Bank of America Merrill Lynch draw on the latest research to outline the impact of what they regard as a fourth industrial revolution, after steam, mass production and electronics.

It’s worth keeping in mind that as an investment bank, BAML invests in whole markets. By prognosticating a new one that’s a “fourth industrial revolution” – right or wrong – they’re talking their book. Investment bank research, which is a low fee operation, is primarily meant to promote a bank’s higher fee services (m&a advisory, capital raising, securities sales & trading, wealth/asset management); so I wouldn’t be so sure that 20 years from now we’ll be living irobot.

Upvote +1 Downvote

81,131

8 years

I doubt we will live in iRobot either, but do you think that the current distribution of jobs + technology that we may have in 20 years will result in a similar unemployment issues as BAML point out or it’s just hot air?

Upvote +1 Downvote

Show 1 more reply

Let me start with the economy, and a basic fact: The United States of America, right now, has the strongest, most durable economy in the world. (Applause.) We’re in the middle of the longest streak of private sector job creation in history. (Applause.) More than 14 million new jobs, the strongest two years of job growth since the ‘90s, a... Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery State of the Union Address | whitehouse.gov

81,131

8 years

There is no individual nation that has surpassed the American economy for half a century. This graph only goes back to 1960 but the trend was clear as early as the 1940s.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

... you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform -- (applause) -- and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse and heroin abuse. (Applause.) So, who knows, we might surprise the cynics again. Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery State of the Union Address | whitehouse.gov

81,131

8 years

There is likely to be a new hurdle in the fight for criminal justice, namely over means rea, Latin for “guilty mind”.

Here, some Republicans have argued that any reform package must include the proposal that prosecutors have to prove that the accused fully intended to commit the crime.

The White House has countered that expanding the proof of burden would make it harder to prosecute corporations for criminal behavior because corporations could argue they had no intent to commit a crime, whether it was pollution or unsafe products.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

22,936

8 years

It’s a Faustian bargain if there ever was one – and one being made with the Kochs – but one which all things considered I’d make considering how badly we criminal justice reform.

In practice, with the many abuses pertaining to the financial crisis as an example, I would argue that corporate wrongdoing is tied more to systemic factors and corrupted institutional norms than to individual nefarious “intent”. This may be (partially) why such crimes have been difficult to criminally prosecute. So while getting into bed with the likes of the Kochs is unpleasant – and ewww! – how much would really be lost here?

Upvote +1 Downvote

81,131

8 years

I have a theory that the Democrats won’t do it unless it’s a Faustain bargain

Upvote +1 Downvote

81,131

8 years

*That they won’t do anything for any issue unless it’s a Faustian bargain

Upvote +1 Downvote

Show 2 more replies

And I understand that because it’s an election season, expectations for what we will achieve this year are low. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach that you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform --... Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery State of the Union Address | whitehouse.gov

81,131

8 years

The New York Times ran an interesting piece on Paul Ryan’s leadership style and it’s sharp contrast from that of former Speaker Boehner.

Mr. Ryan has for the most part pushed the privilege of crafting legislation — and with it, the responsibilities — out of the leadership offices and back into the hands of members, replacing Mr. Boehner’s smoke-filled rooms, at least for now, with energy bar-lined committee conference rooms.

This allowed for spending battles to dramatically shift from fights dominated by Boehner and his inner circle to actual negotiations between legislators much more willing to actually make concessions.

…unlike Mr. Boehner, whose tendency was to promise conservative members that he would fight for even their most unrealistic policy priorities, only to eventually concede to Democrats in the 11th hour, Mr. Ryan has been forthcoming from the beginning with members about their limits, Republicans said.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

[The New York Times ran an interesting piece on Paul Ryan's leadership style](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/us/politics/paul-ryan-brings-sharply-different-leadership-style-to-house.html) and it's sharp contrast from that of former Speaker Boehner.

>Mr. Ryan has for the most part pushed the privilege of crafting legislation — and with it, the responsibilities — out of the leadership offices and back into the hands of members, replacing Mr. Boehner’s smoke-filled rooms, at least for now, with energy bar-lined committee conference rooms.

>...unlike Mr. Boehner, whose tendency was to promise conservative members that he would fight for even their most unrealistic policy priorities, only to eventually concede to Democrats in the 11th hour, Mr. Ryan has been forthcoming from the beginning with members about their limits, Republicans said.

report abuse

...xpectations for what we will achieve this year are low. But, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the constructive approach that you and the other leaders took at the end of last year to pass a budget and make tax cuts permanent for working families. So I hope we can work together this year on some bipartisan priorities like criminal justice reform -- (applause) -- and helping people who are battling prescription drug abuse... Remarks of President Barack Obama – As Prepared for Delivery State of the Union Address | whitehouse.gov

81,131

8 years

“Permanent” tax cuts are not really permanent so much as harder to remove (multiple conditions/any house of Congress or the President can block changes) and made to last over longer periods of time.

They’re tied to Milton Friedman’s permanent-income theory which argues that while short-term increases in household income don’t lead to significant growth in consumption, large long-term increases do.

For a good overview of the debate surrounding permanent tax cuts, see the columns penned by John Taylor and Paul Krugman surrounding tax cuts leading up to the Great Recession and their effectiveness.

This video is processing – it'll appear automatically when it's done.

report abuse

« Previous 1 2 … 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 … 246 247 Next »

Integrate the suggestion into the annotation, keeping the contributor guidelines in mind.