Although I came to Antarctica for science, choosing to overwinter in Antarctica is ultimately a personal journey: Only in the deepest, darkest depths of the Antarctic winter can you find answers to questions you would otherwise never think of or choose to face. You dredge the ocean’s depths of your own mind. It is easier on your body than on your mind, even at 3,800 meters equivalent altitude, having run out of fresh food and living without sunlight for over three months. In overcoming the many challenges during the long polar night, you learn things about yourself that you may not like. A real test of your character and those around you is how you choose to deal with such challenges.

Our future in space is robots exploring the solar system (and there is much to explore) and NOT humans traveling to Mars. Our national policies should reflect that.

In Antarctica, Dreaming of Mars - NYTimes.com

These weather events are not simply an example of what climate change could bring. They are caused by climate change. The odds that natural variability created these extremes are minuscule, vanishingly small. To count on those odds would be like quitting your job and playing the lottery every morning to pay the bills.

Climate change is here — and worse than we thought - The Washington Post

"This summer people are seeing extreme heat and agricultural impacts," Hansen says. "We're asserting that this is causally connected to global warming, and in this paper we present the scientific evidence for that.

Previously this year's weather pattern was connected with the sun spot cycle. This is the first time I've heard someone seriously assert that it was a consequence of climate change.

NASA GISS: Research News: Research Links Extreme Summer Heat Events to Global Warming

Fusco's unit was one of 11 that were individually owned; another 97 were rental units. When the owner of the rental units failed to pay his mortgage, a company under the control of local developer Kevin Timochenko snapped all of them up for $7,200 at a foreclosure auction.

The purchase gave Timochenko's company, Water Polo I, LP, control of nearly 90 percent of the units of the complex, arming it with enough votes to dictate condominium association policy. Soon after the purchase, Fusco and her fellow homeowners received a letter informing them that, come January, condo association fees would more than double, to $450 a month.

Anxiety over raised assessment fees paled in comparison to what happened next: The new condo owner called a vote to terminate the condo association altogether.

Under Section 3220 of the Pennsylvania Uniform Condominium Act, when a condominium is dissolved, the condo association can put the entire condominium up for sale, regardless of who owns the individual units. So in acquiring control of the condo association, Water Polo I also gained the right to sell Fusco's home.

The buyer? Another company controlled by Kevin Timochenko.

It might not have been so bad if Fusco and the other owners got paid what they believed their homes were worth. Pennsylvania law states that in the event of a condominium sale, unit owners have the right to the fair market value of their homes as determined by an appraiser selected by the condominium association. That means that even though Fusco's unit had been valued at $101,000 by an independent appraiser earlier this year, she would get only the amount determined by the appraiser hired by the condominium association.

These stories are not acceptable.

I am absolutely shocked by this. This is beyond the pale.

'This Is Crazy': Company Snatches Condos From Owners | AOL Real Estate

How to drive responsible consumers into bankruptcy:

1. Company A builds Condo building. Sells some units to consumers at normal prices.

2. Market collapses. No one is willing buy the remaining units.

3. Company B buys the remaining unsold units at firesale prices.

4. Company B is now the majority homeowner in the building and controls the HOA.

5. Company B votes to raise HOA fees through the roof, creating a massive financial burden for the remaining minority residents.

6. The remaining residents cannot sell their units because the market has collapsed and they cannot reasonably afford the HOA fees. They are left with no choice but immediate foreclosure.

7. Company B makes short sale offers on the properties, hoping to collect the whole building.

This is one of the most fucked up stories in this housing mess.

Atlantic Station condo owner: HOA fees more than mortgage - CBS Atlanta 46

I found this swipe by Greenwald against liberal yammering about corporate personhood to be refreshing.

All 9 justices of the Supreme Court — from the most liberal to the most conservative — believe, and in Citizens United said, that corporations have free speech rights under the First Amendment, and that restrictions on how they spend their money for political advocacy can violate the First Amendment’s free speech clause.

As Justice John Paul Stevens, writing on behalf of the liberal dissenters in that case, wrote (emphasis added): “of course . . . speech does not fall entirely outside the protection of the First Amendment merely because it comes from a corporation,” and ”no one suggests the contrary“ (the debate in Citizens United was not whether corporations have First Amendment free speech rights — everyone on the Court agreed they do — the question was whether it was Constitutionally permissible to limit those free speech rights in order to achieve a compelling state interest). The notion that Citizens United turned on whether corporations are “persons,” and that the majority and dissent disagreed on this, is pure and total myth.

Chicken and the Constitution

Advertising revenue continues to sink at the New York Times Company, which reported a second-quarter net loss of $88.1 million today. But a glimmer of hope can be seen in circulation revenue, which has actually gone up through print subscription price increases and the online paywall.

If the people pay for the press then the press will serve them.

The New York Times Is Now Supported by Readers, Not Advertisers -- Daily Intel

"Ultimately the ethics of this don't really matter – the decision has been made and this kind of stuff is going to be unavoidable."

Stuxnet: 'Moral crime' or proportionate response? • The Register

Hijexx wrote:

Decius wrote:

Caleb Medley was shot in the eye at the Aurora movie theater mass shooting.

Like a number of people injured in the Aurora shooting, he is uninsured. His family has been told that the cost of his medical treatment may exceed $2 million.

The shooting is a tragedy. I know the correlation Xeni is making is a double edged sword. On the one hand it's bringing visibility to an aspect not many people would otherwise think of, mainly the financial aftermath. On the other hand, it feels like using the tragedy to grind a political axe.

There have been a bunch of discussions about gun control in the wake of the this shooting. If you genuinely believe that gun control would make a difference in cases like this, perhaps you are likely to feel that its a legitimate response - you're not grinding a political axe so much as you're pointing out a solution to a real problem.

The issue that I have with it is that I don't think gun control would make a difference when it comes to this kind of incident, so I think emotional appeals for gun control that reference the incident do lean in the direction of political football spiking.

Where this really becomes a problem is when the solution you're proposing has nothing to do with the problem but you're trying to take advantage of people's feelings about the problem anyway.

I don't think that accusation is fair with regard to the healthcare discussion.

All insurance is redistributive. We all put money in a pot and one of us gets to take that money because he or she got sick. The debate in the US over healthcare is about who is allowed to access the pot and how much their access should cost.

Opponents of national healthcare frequently make the argument that people get sick because they are irresponsible. They smoke. They drink. They don't eat healthy. They ski. Giving them free health insurance just enables them to be irresponsible with their behavior. Honest tax payers should not have to foot the bill for that - these people should be responsible for themselves.

The problem with this logic is that expensive health problems can strike at random. This is a perfect example. Caleb Medley was not shot in the face because he was being irresponsible.

Should Medley have access to care? This is a real world scenario. If one's views on the healthcare issue don't anticipate situations like this, they are wrong.

Should Medley have had insurance? Yes. He would have had access to care if he had insurance. However, anyone could have been in that theater that day. There is not a single human being in this country for whom that answer is no, so there should be no problem making insurance compulsory, just as education is compulsory, because the answer for everyone is always yes in every circumstance.

Even if we decide that Medley made a mi... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

RE: Uninsured Aurora shooting victims face financial devastation - Boing Boing

Caleb Medley was shot in the eye at the Aurora movie theater mass shooting.

Like a number of people injured in the Aurora shooting, he is uninsured. His family has been told that the cost of his medical treatment may exceed $2 million.

Uninsured Aurora shooting victims face financial devastation - Boing Boing