To those of you following along for the last several weeks, this may not be that big of a surprise.
Posting has stiff been sporadic for the last several weeks. I’m still occasionally throwing stuff out I’m nowhere near my peak. And I still have other things that need my attention including new scripts and my NERD ALERT blog for my EBook webpage.
So I’m making a decision that’s been a long time…
Help save the honey bees! Please reblog and share :)
I’m very skeptical about this. Last I’ve heard, CCD is caused by a combination of factors, and to blindly point a finger at one source without references just ticks my bullshit meter. Anyone got science to back this up?
I checked out this page on the Ontario Beekeeper’s Association website, and found a couple of recent papers on the subject (though, granted, they are against the use of neonicotinoid, so it might be a one-sided story). The general consensus seems to be (bee?) that sublethal doses of neonicotinoids cause changes in behavior and physiology which leads to colony collapse - immune suppression to make them more susceptible to disease, negative change in foraging behavior, abandonment of poisoned hives, etc - so, yes, it seems that it is a combination of factors, which are aggravated by pesticide poisoning.
Richard J Gill, Nigel E. Raine. Chronic impairment of bumblebee natural foraging behavious induced by sublethal pesticide exposure. Functional Ecology, British Ecological Society July 7, 2014
Chensheng Lu, Kenneth M. Warchol, Richard A. Callahan Sublethal exposure to neonicotinoids impaired honey bees winterization before proceeding to colony collapse disorder. Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health. Bulletin of Insectology 2014
Dave Goulson An overview of the environmental risks posed by neonicotinoid pesticides. Journal of Applied Ecology 2013
Jeroen P VanderSluijs, Noa Simon-Delso, Dave Goulson, Laura Maxim, Jean-MarcBonmatin, Luc P. Belzunes Neonicotinoids, bee disorders and the sustainability of pollinator services Current Opinion Environmental Sustainability 2013
Rosemary Mason, Henk Tennekes, Francisco Sanchez-Bayo Immune Suppression by Neonicotinoid Insecticides at the Root of Global Wildlife Declines. Journal of Environmental Immunology. 2013
Important topic. Nice background research. Excellent punmanship.
Mostly, What Josh Marshall said…(Via Talking Points Memo.)
The audio tapes posted by The New York Times might as well be from some future Russia-based version of Waiting for Guffman or Best in Show, a comical rendering of rustics and morons stumbling into an event of vast carnage and international consequence mainly because they’re hotheads and idiots – the kind of people no one in their right…
-I’m going to have to start this with some very uncomfortable autobiographical material.
I’m not crazy about getting this personal. However, my experiences are germane to the topic at hand.
My mom had me when she was eighteen.
I forget if she was married before or after I was conceived so I am unclear if I was the reason for her early marriage or it’s result.
But the point is that my mom had me at…
EXTERNAL TEMPERATURE: 93 Degrees.
INTERNAL TEMPERATURE: 94 Degrees with isolated cold spots.
SELF LOATHING INDEX: 68% Due to lack of productivity.
CONDITION OF SURROUNDING AREA: Music is “She & Him, Vol I”. Computer screen has TweetDeck. Primary subject, The Bombing of Gaza.
IMPOTENCE LEVEL: 94% (Aggravated by Gaza Tweets.)
HOPE INDEX: 53%
FIVE DAY FORECAST: Continued heat with…
Published on Saturday, July 5, 2014 by Common Dreams
Afraid to Stoke Populist Ire, Obama Abandons ‘Inequality’ Rhetoric
Guided by pollsters and consultants, top Democrats tack to the right on economic issues
As reported by the Washington Post on Saturday, President Obama is heeding the instructions and advice of pollsters and political consultants as the administration abandons its flirtation with populist rhetoric and a brief White House push to make the scourge of economic inequality a political issue.
Instead, according to officials who spoke to the Post's Zachary Goldfarb, the administration will pivot towards more “politically palatable” messaging less likely to draw critique from Wall Street and the political right.
According to Goldfarb’s reporting, the shift in tactics
hints at a broader repositioning of Democratic messaging ahead of the midterm elections and, perhaps, the 2016 presidential race. House and Senate strategists and their pollsters have concluded that they should focus less on the wealth gap and more on emphasizing that all Americans should have economic “opportunity” to get ahead or a “fair shot.”
“Both the White House and the Senate agreed that the decline of middle-class incomes was the most serious issue we face in this country, but the focus had to be on how to get middle-class incomes up, rather than drive other people’s incomes down,” said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (N.Y.), the messaging chief for Senate Democrats.
He added, “There are some who believe it’s better to talk about the negative parts of wealth that people have accumulated, but our polling data show people care less about that and more about how we’re going to help them.”
But many liberal Democrats, represented most prominently by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.), have been pushing an increasingly populist economic agenda. Some warn against papering over the wealth gap with euphemisms.
On the progressive left, both inside and outside of the Democratic Party, much new energy is being funneled into the idea that a “new populist moment" is the only hope for reinvigorating a progressive agenda in the face of election cycles increasingly dominated by the interests of big money donors and corporate cash.
This month, The Nation magazine dedicated an entire issue to ideas around ‘progressive strategies” for this new “populist moment.” In one essay, written by Rev. William J. Barber, head of the North Carolina chapter of the NAACP and the chief political voice of the Moral Monday movement taking shape in the south, said that the only winnable strategy is one that transcends the major parties, the normal divisions, and focuses on deep forms of justice while articulating a clear vision.
"We need a transformative movement—state-based, deeply moral, deeply constitutional, pro-justice," he said. "We need to build for the long term, not around one issue or campaign."
Robert Borosage—head of the Institute for America’s Future which held a conference on progressive populism in May that featured Rev. Barber, Sen. Elizabeth Warren and many others—says the “sad irony of American politics is that the right is far weaker than it appears and the left far stronger than it asserts.”
Looking towards the likely presidential candidacy of Hillary Clinton in 2016, says Borosage, offers an illustrative point about the challenges faced by progressives who are so frequently abandoned by Democrats so closely aligned with Wall Street. He writes:
If [Clinton] doesn’t face a serious challenge in the primaries—which at this point seems unlikely—the strength of the progressive voice will be muted. In fact, the most attractive Democratic leaders—people like Elizabeth Warren, Sherrod Brown, Jeff Merkley, Tammy Baldwin, Keith Ellison, Raúl Grijalva, Donna Edwards and Bill de Blasio—support a vision and an agenda far bolder and more progressive than that of Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama or Joe Biden. And they are backed by the rising American electorate: Obama’s electoral majority of minorities, millennials and single women, as well as the vast majority of the party base outside Wall Street and Silicon Valley, including unions and civil rights, environmental, women’s rights and citizen-action groups.
This reality can and should be organized and amplified. A broad coalition should lay out a clear vision and reform agenda. Progressives in the House and Senate could force national debates, as Warren has done on student loans. Social media and activism could be complemented by the old populist tactic of dispatching lecturers to traverse the country, speaking at union halls, house parties, schools and church basements. That would help crystallize serious pressure on Clinton—or any other candidate. And it would set up progressives both to oppose the right and to press an independent agenda when a Democrat is in the White House. That agenda would still face tough sledding, since it will inevitably be opposed by corporate and Wall Street Democrats as well as the right. But it would help mobilize ever greater popular protests and demands.
____________________________________This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Article printed from www.CommonDreams.org