10 things to know today

Your daily look at late-breaking news, upcoming events and the stories that will be talked about Friday:
AP Wire
Jul 19, 2013

1. DETROIT FILES FOR BANKRUPTCY

The city, beset by slow declines in population and auto manufacturing, faces up to $20 billion in long-term debt.

2. BOSTON MARATHON SUSPECT CAST IN A DIFFERENT LIGHT

A police photographer, furious with a Rolling Stone cover photo he believes glamorizes Tsarnaev, releases images from the day the teen was captured.

3. HOW OBAMA'S HEALTH CARE LAW IS BEING CHARACTERIZED

The president says it's working the way it's supposed to with "better benefits, stronger protections, more bang for your buck." Boehner calls the measure "a train wreck."

4. EGYPT'S NEW LEADER WARNS AGAINST CHAOS

In his first address to the nation, Mansour issues a stern warning about causing unrest, even as the Muslim Brotherhood plans protests.

5. PANAMA DETAINS EX-CIA STATION CHIEF

Robert Seldon Lady was convicted in absentia in Italy in 2009 in the abduction of an Egyptian terror suspect from a Milan street. He's never been in Italian custody.

6. WHO'S CONFRONTING WHITEY BULGER

The reputed Boston crime boss exchanges snarls — and more — with Stephen "The Rifleman" Flemmi as the former partner testifies against him.

7. RARE OCCURENCE: U.S., CHINA ON SAME PAGE

The world's two biggest emitters of heat-trapping greenhouse gases are finding common cause in efforts to reduce global warming.

8. WHAT'S UNUSUAL ABOUT THE NORTHEAST HEAT WAVE

The high-pressure system is moving from east to west — a rare weather phenomenon.

9. BARBIE'S STATUS AS TOP DOLL IN JEOPARDY

One reason: The success of new, edgier lines like the vampy Monster High dolls.

10. EMMYS GET A MAKEOVER

"House of Cards," an online series, and Netflix's "Arrested Development" win nominations — but new offerings from the traditional TV networks are all but shut out.

 

Comments

Lanivan

7.) But...But...But - there is no such thing as global warning. Vlad, dyankee, truthinventor, and all the rest of you deniers better hop the nearest plane for Shanghai and set China straight!

9.) The world has truly gone to hell in a hen basket when Barbies' decades-long popularity has been eclipsed by a doll called "vampy Monster High".

Wingmaster

7.) More media and Obama slight of hand Lanny.

From the link below, you have to read way down the page to find a nugget of truth.
"Beijing may also see renewable and clean energy as a growing global ***fad***** and want to ensure they're not left out. In 2010, China's government spent more than $30 billion subsidizing its solar panel industry, U.S. energy officials said. And the U.S. shale natural gas boom is attracting major Chinese investment, too.

***Oops guess they let that one slip.
http://www.ctvnews.ca/world/obam...

Lanivan

Interesting article. I also find it interesting that you far-right conservatives seem to have a love/hate affair with boogeymen such as Communism, the Cold War, Terrorism, and so on, to justify spending billions, trillions even, on defense, war, sending our troops across the world.

But an attempt to stay competitive in the renewable energy industry, or move in the direction of a partnership with global leader #2 to address global warming, it becomes a fixation on the downfalls of the media and the evils of Obama.

Guess what? The world is jumping into the renewable energy industry in a huge way - private and public investments in the hundreds of billions, exploding amounts of wind, solar, hydro research, development, construction, implementation, harnessing, and harvesting.

President Obama is one of the, if not the, most powerful men in the world, but really, he doesn't control what has become one of the biggest growth industries in the history of mankind.

Wingmaster

That a girl.....blow right past the media Freudian slip that its a fad.

Lanivan

May I direct you to the word " "may" be a fad". This is a qualifier, a useful tool in writing.

It's all about nuance, Wing. But I know you can only handle just so much "nuance", and then you are riding off into the sunset, guns a'blazin'....

Wingmaster

Nuance: Liberal trickery perfected over years of lying to the American public.

Actually quite telling in our dialogue as you use it often when you cannot concede a point!

Lanivan

Oh no - it's not just liberal trickery. Republicans and Independents do it, too. In fact, you are employing nuance in your post....but just a little, we don't want to get carried away and appear totally nuanced.

Since you brought it up, I will try to use less nuance and more directness in my posts. Anything to make you conservatives less distinctively critical.

truthhurts

7.) global warming is just another way for obama to spend more money. I have a carbon footprint the size of bigfoot!

Lanivan

Since you are opposed to finding the facts, I have taken the arrogant liberty of supplying them for you. Now don't look a gift horse in the mouth!..

China leads the world in renewable energy investments:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jack...

9teen percent

7.) There are three rational ways in which one can make a decision as to whether to accept the results of a scientific theory or not. Normally a person just accepts scientific findings. Other times, scientific findings have political ramifications, and the two—scientific findings and politics—get hopelessly entangled. Whether cigarette smoking causes cancer or not is a good example from our past. To explain the three ways, I’ll use global warming as an example.

First: A person could take enough meteorological courses so that he could competently analyze the raw data and come to a conclusion. No one would take this route, unless however, he was planning on becoming a meteorologist.

Second: A person could wait for a scientist in the area—in our case a meteorologist—who can also write, or wait for a science writer to write a book on the theory that brings the theory down to the level of the intelligent layman: a level, e.g., like the articles in Scientific American magazine, or Al Gore’s book, An Inconvenient Truth.

Third: Now as far as global warming is concerned, more than 97% of working climate scientists believe in global warming. (Dan Vergano, “Gingrich's Limbaugh Troubles Spell Out Climate Divide,” USA TODAY 19, Feb. 2012). Recently, even a climate science group that denied global warming has admitted that they were wrong. (Richard A. Muller, “The Conversion of a Climate–Change Skeptic,” New York Times, 30, June 2012). In other words, a person could just accept the scientist's opinion.

To illustrate the above, suppose that you had an illness, and you did not know what it was. You go to a hundred different doctors. Ninety seven of the doctors tell you that the illness is A, two of them tell you it is B, and one tells you he does not know what it is. He needs to do more tests. So what do you do? You go with the majority; you go with the A. It’s this simple. To not take advice—especially advice that is so heavily skewed to one side—you would have to be one ignorant individual.

When our interests, way of life, or politics become involved, decisions can become irrational. Here are some ways. People begin to think that scientific laws or theories should provide certainty. They don’t. They never have. Inductive reasoning—which is what science is based on—does not provide certainty. And when the certainty is not there, people think that the safest course is to do nothing. A scientific theory is the consensus of expert opinion on a subject. This is the best one can get from science. Furthermore, there is no other source for an expert opinion on the matter.

In addition to wanting certainty about the results of a scientific theory, people also want certainty about the results of the remedy. This generally is not possible either. No medical procedure, for example, is 100% safe.

If people in general have doubt about a scientific theory, the people who have the most to loose if the theory is accepted, will fan the flames of doubt. In the case of climate warming, these are some of the existing energy companies, their scientists, and the politicians they support financially. In the case of cigarette smoking and cancer, it was the tobacco companies, the tobacco companies’ scientists, and the politicians in the tobacco companies’ district.

Lanivan

100% correct - thank you, 9teen percent, for your clearly-stated post.

Post a Comment

Log in to your account to post comments here and on other stories, galleries and polls. Share your thoughts and reply to comments posted by others. Don't have an account on GrandHavenTribune.com? Create a new account today to get started.