By Alister Doyle and William Schomberg
OSLO/LONDON (Reuters) - Investments to help fight climate change can also spur economic growth, rather than slow it as widely feared, but time is running short for a trillion-dollar shift to transform cities and energy use, an international report said on Tuesday.
The study, by former heads of government, business leaders, economists and other experts, said the next 15 years were critical for a bigger shift to clean energies from fossil fuels to combat global warming and cut health bills from pollution.
“It is possible to tackle climate change and it is possible to have economic growth at the same time,” Felipe Calderon, a former Mexican president and head of the Global Commission on the Economy and Climate, told a news conference.
Many governments and businesses wrongly fear that measures to slow climate change will undermine jobs and growth, he said. The report is meant to guide world leaders at a Sept. 23 climate summit hosted by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
Let me get this straight: Control of the Senate hangs on whether women show up to vote, and candidates with long records against women’s health want to make this election about birth control. Where do I send the thank-you card? Would a gift basket from Hickory Farms be too much? This is cause for celebration, because if you’re a candidate who is against abortion and birth control, the last thing you want to campaign on for the next two months is abortion and birth control.
But it’s too late now. No take-backs. If they want to talk about women’s health, let’s talk about it. Because doing things their way would mean we would lose insurance coverage for birth control, and we’re not willing to go back.
We should have known this is where they were going when Rep. Mike Coffman in Colorado said, “I support a woman’s access to…” and forgot the words “birth control.” Everyone had a good laugh about it, but few noticed the first part of that sentence. It was strange coming from someone who voted to ban funding for Planned Parenthood health centers, who provide women with access to a lot of, well, you know.
So Ernst, Tillis, Gardner, et al want to campaign on birth control? Twist my arm. If these politicians want to make birth control a dominant issue in the 2014 by proposing a new $483 million birth control tax on American women, we’re game.
This is how it really is, abortion: You do things you regret or don’t understand and then you make other choices because life keeps going forward. Or you do something out of love and then, through biology or accident, it goes inexplicably wrong, and you do what you can to cope. Or you do whatever you do, however you do it, for whatever reason, because that’s your experience.
It’s not Ms. Davis’s job to be groundbreaking, and I’m sorry that her personal reproductive history has to be declared and described (not to mention leveraged for votes). Do we approve of what she wanted? Did she suffer enough? These questions are not ours to ask.
We have to stop categorizing abortions as justified or unjustified. The best thing you can do if you support reproductive rights is to force people to realize that abortion is common, and the most common abortion is a five-to-15-minute procedure elected early in the first trimester by someone who doesn’t want to be pregnant or have a child. It’s our job to say it’s O.K. if that’s the end of the story. It’s O.K. if it’s boring or not traumatic or if you don’t even know what it was.
We believe in a woman’s autonomy and her right to choose whether to continue or end a pregnancy. Every woman should have the right to decide the future of her pregnancy according to her conscience, whatever her reasons or circumstances. A just society does not compel women to continue an undesired pregnancy.
We recognize that support for choice in itself is not enough. Access to abortion is an integral part of women’s reproductive health care, and we believe in the right to receive this. Women need access to resources and services, including the counsel of the professionals, friends and family they choose to involve. Legal, political, social and economic changes are necessary to allow the exercise of reproductive choice, and a commitment to such changes is part of a commitment to choice.
Passed by the North Dakota House and Senate in April 2013, Resolution 4009, as it was then known, was hailed by abortion opponents as groundbreaking by being the first legislatively passed “personhood amendment,” which would grant legal rights and protection at the moment an egg is fertilized. “After four years of hard work pro-life personhood legislation has passed both houses of the North Dakota legislature!” read Personhood North Dakota’s now-defunct main page. “This means that North Dakota is only a popular vote away from being the first state in American history to ban abortion!” And in February 2013, state Sen. Margaret Sitte, the sponsor of the resolution, told Laura Bassett of The Huffington Post, “We are intending that it be a direct challenge to Roe v. Wade, since [Justice Antonin] Scalia said that the Supreme Court is waiting for states to raise a case.”
So would voting for Measure 1 be a vote for personhood? Could it ban all abortion and potentially some forms of hormonal contraception, make medical procedures like IVF impossible, and even interfere with individual end-of-life decisions? It depends who you ask.
Unlike “personhood amendments” introduced elsewhere in the country, North Dakota’s measure does not specifically mention conception. And despite the fanfare when the resolution passed, the word “personhood” has entirely disappeared from any current discussion by Measure 1 backers. According to ND Choose Life, a coalition formed by social conservative and religious freedom groups, anti-abortion advocacy groups, and the North Dakota Catholic Conference, the amendment simply protects current abortion restrictions from being challenged and potentially overturned, and might protect new legislation the state may introduce. They say it will not ban abortion and does nothing on its own to directly limit abortion any more than the Supreme Court allows at the federal level.
1. Virginity Exists
Therese Shechter’s 2013 documentary How To Lose Your Virginity asks a seemingly simple question: What is a virgin? The answer is actually pretty complicated.
The common idea of virginity is focused on a heteronormative, male-centric definition of intercourse — that is, penis-in-vagina penetration. But this definition ignores LGBTQIA+ couples, oral and anal sex, instances where it “didn’t go all the way in,” rape, and emotional intimacy.
The cultural obsession with virginity is more about keeping girls pure than anything else, and because the term begins to crumble upon close inspection, it doesn’t have to carry such weight.
There’s no clear universal concept of virginity, and people should be able to define meaningful markers of intimacy for themselves.
2. Hymens Are a Sign of Virginity
Given that the entire notion of virginity is dubious at best, it’s not all that surprising that there is actually no medical way to tell if someone is a virgin or not. This includes a broken hymen.
Hymens usually become worn down throughout adolescence and can be torn by everything from jumping on a trampoline, to horseback riding, to simply playing sports. Some women aren’t born with one at all.
Despite the fact that more than half of women don’t bleed the first time they have penetrative sex, blood on the sheets has remained a signifier of losing one’s virginity throughout history.
The persistence of this myth surrounding a basically irrelevant anatomical feature has even spawned a market for artificial hymens and reconstructive surgery to “restore” virginity. More disturbingly, girls around the world are often subject to degrading, invasive virginity “tests” to ensure their purity.
I called this “Culture” for lack of a better category. To err on the side of caution, I’m declaring the following links NSFW. My mind has gone to a dark place today, and you’re invited. No, there isn’t any particular reason I feel this way now. I just do. Its just that misery loves company, and I could use some. If you don’t want your day ruined, close this page NOW.
You think you know fairy tales? You probably don’t. According to this video, alot lot of them used to be much worse than their modern versions. They were outright horror stories. For example, Hansel and Gretel used to be more horrifying than “witch wants to eat lost children, so they put the witch into her own oven.”
“Top 10 Fairy Tale Dark Origins” by Creeps McPasta Plays
Fiction not enough to ruin your day? How about some reality? Most of the toys in this next video were real safety hazards. And too often the companies making them knew it and didn’t care. Yes, this includes some talk about death.
“15 Worst Toys Ever Recalled” by Danger Dolan
Dead and/or mangled kids not bad enough? How about putting a child through hell on earth, and forever ruining your image of small towns while we’re at it? This final link is a Cracked article of the “What Rape Culture?” type, to borrow a fellow lizard’s phrase.
“5 Things I Learned as a Sex Slave in Modern America” by Anonymous (+ Robert Evans)
When you hear about modern-day slavery, you probably picture some third-world brutality occurring in Africa or Southeast Asia (and if you just muttered something about your unpaid office internship, go ahead and slap yourself right now). When you hear about sex trafficking, you imagine a gang of Eastern European thugs kidnapping women and getting chased down by Liam Neeson.
But, incredibly, human trafficking is a multi-billion-dollar industry in the United States today. Statistically, Liam Neeson is more likely to sell his own daughter into slavery than have her stolen by some mysteriously brown Parisians. Cracked wanted to know how the hell this was possible, so we sat down with “Jane,” a former sex slave, and asked her about her life.
If you’re not disgusted and horrified to your core by now, then you’re either pure evil or just completely dead inside. If these links (especially the last) have made you uncomfortable, depressed, sick to your guts and/or angry, then thank you for joining me today.
As the number of Internet connected-devices in any home skyrockets from a few, to a few dozen, to perhaps even a few hundred—including interconnecting thermostats, appliances, health and fitness monitors and personal accessories like smart watches—security concerns for this emerging Internet of Things (IoT) will skyrocket too. Cisco projects that there will be 50 billion connected devices by 2020; each such node should ideally be protected against malware, spyware, worms, and trojans, as well as overzealous government and commercial interests who themselves might produce their own privacy-compromising intrusions.
It’s a tall order, says Allen Storey, product director at the UK security firm Intercede. But the biggest challenges today are not so much technical problems as they are matters of awareness and education. Consumers need to know, says Storey, that IoT security is a real concern as the first wave of gadgets roll out into the marketplace. And unlike devices with faster processors and bigger memories, security is a product feature that the marketplace may not by itself reward.
The Republicans’ favorite crusade returns, but for the moment it’s focusing on a real policy issue—thanks to a Democrat.
I think the play by Trey Gowdy here is this: start off reasonably and get the media to run with the idea that he’s holding a substantial hearing, unlike all the others. However, I have no doubt that it will soon devolve into a red meat feeding frenzy for the wingnuts. I can just imagine the Morning Joe crew heaping praise on this “serious hearing that’s long overdue” (thankfully I’ve long given up watching that poor excuse for a smart political show).
Well that’s a relief, fracking doesn’t cause flaming water spigot syndrome, leaking gas wells that wouldn’t be there without fracking do….
The drilling procedure called fracking didn’t cause much-publicized cases of tainted groundwater in areas of Pennsylvania and Texas, a new study finds. Instead, it blames the contamination on problems in pipes and seals in natural gas wells.
After looking at dozens of cases of suspected contamination, the scientists focused on eight hydraulically fractured wells in those states, where they chemically linked the tainted water to the gas wells. They then used chemical analysis to figure out when in the process of gas extraction methane leaked into groundwater. “We found the evidence suggested that fracking was not to blame, that it was actually a well integrity issue,” said Ohio State University geochemist Thomas Darrah, lead author of the study. He said those results are good news because that type of contamination problem is easier to fix and is more preventable. The work was released Monday by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.