17 Burst results for "Marshall Institute"
"marshall institute" Discussed on QUEERY with Cameron Esposito
"Everyone can't be here. We are a couple months out from book publication and I just wanted to say that you know as books are now as other people's books are now being launched into a pandemic timeline. It's made me realize how disappointed I am, but I didn't get to interact with all of you when save yourself launched in the oldest tickets to the live shows had to be refunded so I wanted to say. If you have purchased the book, I'd love to hear from you please. Let me know what you think. Tweet at me posted on Instagram Raider Review. It means the world to meet interact with Y'all and it was crushing to have things cancel at the last minute. Specifically about this book which I love so much so. Please, reach out. Let me know what you thought. You Save yourself a bestseller. This is a show about individual experience and personal identity. There may be times when folks US identifying words or phrases that don't feel right to you. That's part of what we're exploring here. Please listen with an open heart and as always I welcome your plate engaged feedback and I encourage you to continue the conversation in your own life and with your own community. Welcome to query. Hey Queiroz Cami Year I. AM incredibly excited about today's episode. My guest is L. hearns. L. Is the founder of the Marketer P Johnson Institute, and if you follow me on my socials which by the way. Why do you listen to this podcast and not follow me on my socials but if you do, you would have seen L. on my instagram during the share, the Mike Now Campaign we talk about that. But also the Marshall Institute and I was just incredibly grateful to L. for her time and In that takeover of my instagram and then also to come on the podcast. So please Andrey this episode. Feeling. Still No no no Caralis? Awesome. Why always have guests introduce themselves when you introduce your? So absolutely My name is l. her I am the founder and executive director the Marsha p Johnson Institute my pronouns are mandatory and they are she her in her and I am a native of Columbus Ohio. I've never heard somebody say my prone mandatory. Let's pretty cool. Is that is that a state is unafraid use often. I do I think we've kind of bought into this idea that. Are Nouns are available for interpretation as opposed to being ways that we honor not who we are but I, we expect others to honor who we are. So I let people know you know that my pronouns are mine I try my. Best, to respect others you know especially under the guise of assumptions we assume people's pronouns more than we like to admit. Sure. How do you navigate that in your life? Do you find that you often ask folks for their pronounced? Asked when we first met I, think you asked early very early in the conversation. Yeah. For me I interchange. So I go. Between, using gender neutral pronouns for people whose pronounce I'm not aware of or acts directly specifically more intimate interactions that acts but though. At intimate I use just neutral language to be as respectful as I can. So you like. So in that case, you're going to default to them what you're saying yeah. Yeah. You know I always ever. Do at at, it was very difficult for me because you know as a Trans Woman I came into this kind of larger understanding of transmits. After. Leaving jail, and so the pronouns that are used for you in jail are. Very different than the pronouns of the world and so you know just in my life even prior to jail in just different experiences that I had a pronouns where not necessarily something that I saw people. To define for themselves. Wow I. Is. It artif- ask you a little bit more about that. Specifically. Specifically what? Anything that might have happened. During that time what when you say that that there were different pronounce in that time in your life. Just, I have so much compassion for you on hearing. There s the first thing that's why I had to do like a big exhale unlike. That sounds really tough. when was that in your life when? Down was that probably? Two thousand. Fourteen On that was really pivotal moment that kind of shift in my entire life into you know social justice than into activism in Sudan World of you know academia where there's certain language you. Defined and exalt ones live unions, and so the lived experience that I had was very much. So different Lee connected to language that people were using more. Broadly in hierarchy. Hype of structures. So what was happening your life before that? Like where where were you living in wars going on for you? Oh Wow. So my adult life I've lived. A. Back and forth between Columbus Ohio in New York. City and I had experienced You know homelessness in both cities, which is why there was just some back and forth. So housing insecurity is something I experienced tremendously throughout my twenties as I was trying to really figure out you know. Where home was for me as a Black Trans woman, you know trying to find a place Raphael not only comfortable but that I felt alive is something that I had always been searching for and I never could find it in my hometown and even in New York City, you know I was in. Ohio girl from New York City trying to find a home in this big place where If you don't have a Lotta money is very difficult to find a home, and so you know that was the experience that a had consistently prior to movements in new. York. City I worked in you know industries that you know gave me I think a lot of knowledge that I'm able to us today but it certainly didn't me any comfort you know around a living outside of poverty and so. I think a lot of those experiences what kind of shape not only my pilots but might desire to create more for me and other people. During that time where you sleeping outside, were you like crashing with friends? What was the day? All of the above you know so you know certainly during that time had Moved into, you know sharing space with an intimate partner and you know that was certainly in boat emotionally abusive Living Arrangement, and you know there was a time where certainly was sleeping on couches. Sleeping on floors in. New. York City.
"marshall institute" Discussed on QUEERY with Cameron Esposito
"My guest is L. hearns. . L. Is the founder of the Marketer P Johnson Institute, , and if you follow me on my socials which by the way. . Why do you listen to this podcast and not follow me on my socials but if you do, , you would have seen L. on my instagram during the share, , the Mike Now Campaign <hes> we talk about that. . But also the Marshall Institute and I was just incredibly grateful to L. for her time and <hes>. . In that takeover of my instagram and then also to come on the podcast. . So please Andrey this episode. . Feeling. . Still No no no Caralis? ? Awesome. . Why always have guests introduce themselves when you introduce your? ? So absolutely My name is l. her I am the founder and executive director the Marsha p Johnson Institute my pronouns are mandatory and they are she her in her and I am a native of Columbus Ohio. . I've never heard somebody say my prone mandatory. . Let's pretty cool. . Is that is that a state is unafraid use often. . I do I think we've kind of bought into this idea that. . Are Nouns are available for interpretation as opposed to being ways that we honor not who we are but I, we , expect others to honor who we are. So . I let people know you know that my pronouns are mine I try my. . Best, , to respect others <hes> you know especially under the guise of assumptions we assume people's pronouns more than we <hes> like to admit. . Sure. . How do you navigate that in your life? ? Do you find that you often ask folks for their pronounced? ? Asked when we first met I, , think you asked early very early in the conversation. . Yeah. . For me I interchange. So . I go. . Between, , using gender neutral pronouns for people whose pronounce I'm not aware of or acts directly specifically more intimate interactions that acts but though. . At intimate I use just neutral language to be as respectful as I can. . So you like. . So in that case, , you're going to default to them what you're saying yeah. . Yeah. . You know I always ever. . Do at at, , it was very difficult for me because <hes> you know as a Trans Woman I came into <hes> this kind of larger understanding of transmits. . After. . Leaving jail, , and so the pronouns that are used for you in jail are. . Very different than <hes> the pronouns of the world and so <hes> you know just in my life even prior to jail in just different experiences that I had a pronouns where not necessarily something that I saw people. . To define for themselves. .
Interview With Elle Hearns
"My guest is L. hearns. L. Is the founder of the Marketer P Johnson Institute, and if you follow me on my socials which by the way. Why do you listen to this podcast and not follow me on my socials but if you do, you would have seen L. on my instagram during the share, the Mike Now Campaign we talk about that. But also the Marshall Institute and I was just incredibly grateful to L. for her time and In that takeover of my instagram and then also to come on the podcast. So please Andrey this episode. Feeling. Still No no no Caralis? Awesome. Why always have guests introduce themselves when you introduce your? So absolutely My name is l. her I am the founder and executive director the Marsha p Johnson Institute my pronouns are mandatory and they are she her in her and I am a native of Columbus Ohio. I've never heard somebody say my prone mandatory. Let's pretty cool. Is that is that a state is unafraid use often. I do I think we've kind of bought into this idea that. Are Nouns are available for interpretation as opposed to being ways that we honor not who we are but I, we expect others to honor who we are. So I let people know you know that my pronouns are mine I try my. Best, to respect others you know especially under the guise of assumptions we assume people's pronouns more than we like to admit. Sure. How do you navigate that in your life? Do you find that you often ask folks for their pronounced? Asked when we first met I, think you asked early very early in the conversation. Yeah. For me I interchange. So I go. Between, using gender neutral pronouns for people whose pronounce I'm not aware of or acts directly specifically more intimate interactions that acts but though. At intimate I use just neutral language to be as respectful as I can. So you like. So in that case, you're going to default to them what you're saying yeah. Yeah. You know I always ever. Do at at, it was very difficult for me because you know as a Trans Woman I came into this kind of larger understanding of transmits. After. Leaving jail, and so the pronouns that are used for you in jail are. Very different than the pronouns of the world and so you know just in my life even prior to jail in just different experiences that I had a pronouns where not necessarily something that I saw people. To define for themselves.
"marshall institute" Discussed on Talk 1260 KTRC
"Donors trust and donors capital fund has made it very difficult for researchers to continue their work one can certainly in for about these things yet conjecture is not what we do is scholars data is our life but and yet private philanthropic and industry funding continues to be kept in the dark not only will better transparency improve our research but it may also help to thwart large scale manipulation campaigns before they began or after they've already taken root thank you now what I want again I was just and feral from Yale University will skip out for a little bit and we'll pick it up with Naomi rescue from Harvard University and she'll be discussing basically the same thing dark money and climb with the Nile stories just breaking from the house Democrats and the executive order from the governor of New Mexico will get to that but we'll listen to a little bit of Naomi recipes professor Harvard University this hearing today in Washington here's the fossil fuel industry and its allies have systematically misled the American people and contributed to inaction by discounting and disparaging climate science misrepresenting scientific findings and attempting to discredit climate scientist these activities are documented in my recent co author report how Americans were deliberately misled about climate change as well as my twenty ten book merchants of doubt a key aspect of fossil fuel disinformation has been the role role of so called third party allies these include think tanks such as the Cato Institute astro turf organizations such as the greening earth society and trade associations such as the US chamber of commerce and the national association of manufacturers for decades these organizations have reinforced fossil fuel industry messaging such as the claim that's the sciences and settled that of climate change is occurring we don't know what's causing it or that it would be too expensive to fix the role of third party allies was on full display last week in hearings of the house committee on oversight we're Republican members invited as a witness the founder and president of energy forty five energy forty five as part of a group known as the CO two coalition they illustrate a strategy I called zombie to nihilism in which old players and arguments re appear in new forms route the nineteen nineties and early two thousands of leader in climate change this information was the George C. Marshall institute the institute closed in twenty fifteen only to re emerge a few years later as the CO two coalition their representative shamelessly repeated fossil fuel industry talking points many of them deeply misleading if not patently false these included the claim that climate change will be quote mild and manageable there is no scientific basis for this claim and recent events in Texas Puerto Rico and California have shown that climate change is already becoming unmanageable the claim the fossil fuels are cheap fossil fuels are not cheap the International Monetary Fund estimates the external cost of fossil fuels at over five trillion dollars each year they make misleading assertions about the allegedly high cost of renewable energy according to Bloomberg news in two thirds of the world solar is now the cheapest form of newly installed electrical generation the claim that under president trump in the United States but the United States under president trump has cut greenhouse gas emissions this is brazenly falls in fact US greenhouse emissions spiked in twenty eighteen a three percent increase over the previous year and most egregiously a misleading narrative about fossil fuels solving energy poverty as pope Francis merry Robinson banking moon and many others have emphasized climate change hurts the poor above all the cynicism behind this argument is simply astonishing all right wing cut it off there that is the name of your recipes professor Harvard University before that Justin feral professor Yale University and before that children White House United States senator Democrat from Rhode Island part of this climate crisis committee holding these hearings today to other participants were Tom Udall and Martin Heinrich both United States Sanders from New Mexico what's going on the house post dean the text of the impeachment resolution and governor Michelle Luan Grisham just.
"marshall institute" Discussed on Factually! with Adam Conover
"Proxy records these are Natural Archives Tree rings corals and ice cores an lake sediments that tell us something about how the climate changed Israeli attribute that's right Amoeba siege weapon or just have some fun with a slime making kick come on how much fun is that. So Kiwi Co is offering you the chance to okay all you gotta do is go to a cutie scheduling dot com slash factually that's a cutie scheduling dot com slash. Factually what do you think did I read the hell out of that ad or what hey they hate capitalism but team player you know if it means they get to keep doing my show I'll dance like a little monkey I'm happy to do it okay let's go back to the show Dr Amazing Expert your answer today so Michael you're telling me about the hockey stick graph and about how the forces that the Anti Science Forces wanted to use this as an opportunity to discredit the science who were these horses and what means did they use to try to do so yeah so I learned quite a bit you know when you're at the center of a concerted effort to discredit you and your science you one of our curious about who these people are and where they coming from and it turns out their whole books that have been written on this my good friend and colleague we arrestees in Eric Conway have written a wonderful book merchants of doubt that talks about the campaign to deny climate change and how it's really rooted in other pass I industry funded campaigns to discredit science that might be inconvenient to their financial bottom tobacco industry absolutely most famous the the tobacco industry their own internal documents back in the nineteen fifties showed that they knew there product was deadly and addictive and they spent millions of dollars in the doing decades trying to discredit other independent scientists who in fact were simply finding the same thing that their own scientists found in the same is true the fossil fuel industry right I I seem to remember reading about how you know. Exxon scientists were aware of climate change very early on on but that was obviously stifled in internally yet catastrophic that was the word used by ExxonMobil's soon scientists in an internal document from the nineteen seventies that was was buried in eventually resurfaced their own scientists at the impacts of continued fossil fuel burning could have quote catastrophic and irreversible impacts on our climate it's the same story because it's the same playbook and Naomi and Eric called the tobacco strategy the strategy to discredit to hire your own independent scientists who become attack dogs attacking the site their own fellow scientists you create front groups organizations with impressive sounding names like the cooler heads coalition or friends of science or the heartland institute or the Competitive Enterprise Institute Thri or the George Marshall Institute these are all names of front groups and organizations that were funded by the fossil fuel industry and the tobacco industry and other industries to discuss read it any science that might be inconvenient to their financial bottom line and raise your eyebrow though when you have science or purported science that claims to be discrediting climate science coming from a group at the Competitive Enterprise Institute that is funded by the fossil fuel industry I mean that's not how proper science is done right that's right and I think you know you've really put your finger on it here which is that as a scientist is that is not a world that you're trained to operate in its those are not the rules of engagement that you're taught the rules of engagement in science involve honest inquiry and debate and true skepticism skepticism is a is a good thing in science it was you know what Carl Sagan described as the self-correcting machinery of science but what's happened is that machinery has been hijacked by special interests Um and so what you know we might think of as skeptics schism is turned into a sort of one sided skepticism where mainstream science is attacked based on the flimsiest of arguments that don't AH stand up to the slightest bit of scrutiny but might sound convincing to an unknowing public to an unknowing audience yeah those are the tactics of the forces of anti science and scientists are not trained weld operate in that sphere and as you know scientists I had to sort of learn through trial trial by hire really how to defend my work and to defend myself against dishonest attacks in a way that was still faithful to me principals as a scientist but nonetheless effective in fighting back against the forces of Misinformation and disinformation it's a challenge but it's an asymmetric battle as scientists we have to uphold certain principles of honesty and objective nickel thinking and and we are we do our best to be up front about caveats and uncertainties in the other side has not which interests willing to present a very one sided picture and to use very misleading if not downright dishonest arguments in effort not to inform but to deceive right I it sounds to me like the difference is look when you're you know the the consensus among Emmett scientists or scientists in any field is based on you know the the preponderance of the evidence and all these different studies that come out and so when there's a contradiction we study or there's some uncertainty or there's an area while we're not entirely sure about Xyz or if you've got a you know a group of scientists who are saying well we're not assures the rest you that sort of gets folded into the consensus and you have a rational discussion at at a conference right about like how much do we know and then everybody sort of gets on the same page and the you know that's the that's the sort of academic scholarly scientific way of working and so that sort of dissenter those contradictory results get folded in this is a strategy of well any bit of contradictory evidence I'm going to latch onto and say no this proves my point that I'm GonNa take to the press that all of this is bullshit which is right to not how science works and it's even worse than that Adam because in fact the evidence may not have all be contradictory but they want you to think it is They might cherry pick a record from one location that was cold one year to try to invalidate olive global warming which is based on measurements from around the planet over many years that's a standard denier tactic Cherry picking misrepresenting the data You know sort of only looking at a very specific time interval where they chop off you know segments in time that are inconvenient to their argument that show the warming that they don't want you to see right and manipulated graph to make it look you could make a line that goes up if you are willing to chop up you become very expert at all of these sort of deceptive tactics whereas again you know scientists we we're he you believe in you know objective scientific discourse and we are up for aren't about uncertainties we often emphasize them we are engaged as you alluded to in often very fracture this arguments and debates the good friend of mine no longer with us but it was one of the great climate scientists in one of the great science communicators of all time Stephen Schneider His his final book was called Science as a contact sport and science can be very confrontational and that's the thing as long as it's honest confrontation as long as you are holding each other responsible for making the strongest possible argument for defense ending your claims with solid evidence and solid reasoning. That's the self-correcting machinery that You know that Car Carl Sagan spoke so eloquently about not in Sagan also famously said that you know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence yeah and and you know what is the most extraordinary reclaim you could possibly make that despite the overwhelming observational evidence in its consistency with basic theory that somehow scientists the entire world community of scientists has gotten it wrong on global warming and Climate Change and what is the argument that the critics used to make that claim again it's they have no legitimate arguments whatsoever just cherry picking random data points and misrepresentation that's hardly the extraordinary evidence that would be required for the extraordinary conclusion that somehow all the scientists have gotten it wrong we you know the two hundred years of basic physics and chemistry is wrong and by the way how do we explain meanwhile Venus is a you know a hothouse planet Mars is a frozen planet because without our understanding of the greenhouse effect which is at the center of climate change we wouldn't be able to explain that by the way the air force wouldn't be able to design effective heat seeking missiles because this scientists put in practice right now absolutely you need to understand the heat absorbing nature of the atmosphere the greenhouse absorption if you are to design a he seeking missile in the air force understood that they built the absorbed the Absorption Spectra of carbon dioxide is built into their into into the very algorithm is behind us and we know that the military is taking the effects of climate change into account in their planning for the next few decades that they you know the they can't afford to deny reality in front of their faces they they have to actually take it into account but it it it strikes me that the problem that you're talking about is one one of sort of intellectual standards right that like in everyone in the scientific community part of what makes it work is that everybody holds each of the same standard of national argument and good faith and the you know when someone is being a Kook or being a wingnut right and not adhering to those standards everyone else in science knows this sort of okay we're going to not listen to this person quite as much they can publish and stuff but you know we're not going to you know this is a fringe view point right and and we we we know the difference and we know how to take that into account right the problem is the problem the public at large is not part of that same scientific community and they don't have the standards in their minds and they don't know how to make that determination and so with a situation where the wing nuts are able to go to the press go to the public go to you know the more biased parts of our news apparatus and get the message out there and because then they're operating according to the tools according to the rules of the media not of science if I can that's me rephrasing sort of the the point that you made absolutely just to comment on that because listener could well be forgiven for thinking that we're not talking about climate change but our modern American Medical discourse easily appropriate that very same model to describe you know are are larger political discourse today and I would argue that those two things are not unrelated that the bad faith nature of our climate discourse today is a manifestation of a larger problem which is the loss of good faith in our public discourse writ large yeah and it's so you're one of the things I love about science and the scientific community is that it is still a place where good faith thrives in the community itself that that it you know you have people having these good-faith disagreements and and coming to who real conclusions and having difficult conversations it's the problem is once we get into the public sphere so as a scientist you are someone who has who has stepped into the public sphere and started being vocal and having to learn those tools of media combat How how have you what's that well I you know I study from the best I watch you all the time all the time and and very much enjoyed being on your show last year sure and you know what I you know and I'm not entirely just joking here because I have found that there's this amazing community of communicators out there in you are one of the Madam my good friend Bill Nye is another home Neil degrasse Tyson there are many and increasingly more diverse men and women of all creeds and ethnicities there's increasingly a very diverse community of science voices out there scientists who recognize that it isn't enough for the scientific community to just do the science because in today's world there are larger forces I in many of them have ill motives and tried to hijack our political discourse in including our scientific discourse for their own motives for their own personal agendas or corporate agendas and if we scientists don't speak up if we don't participate in this larger discussion than we leave behind a vacuum that is going to be filled by the voices of missing formation and disinformation by those looking to hijack our public discourse for their own agenda so I a few years ago actually five years ago now hard to believe back in two thousand fourteen I wrote an op Ed in the New York Times entitled if you see something say something and of course that is the the motto of Our Department of Homeland Sec- charity but I- appropriated it for this piece as an appropriate model for our role as scientists who are by the way paid by the tax payers to study things like climate change we owe it to them to report what we're finding into try to make sure that the larger policy Russian is informed by an objective assessment of what the science has to say and what the what the risks really are and I don't think science this should have to apologize for being advocates for an informed policy discourse and and that's the case that I made Dan and I continue to to make an fortunately there are now a lot of scientists I think who've embraced that view and are out there on the front lines trying to inform this discussion about what is arguably the greatest challenge we face there's the softer form of denial ISM that says well maybe it's happening but we shouldn't worry about it and so let me post arguments to you and I I'd love to hear your responses to them because some of them I think I know the answers to some of them I don't so when folks say for instance hey there's been a lot of warming and cooling over time climate can change naturally and has changed naturally in the past it can't possibly be due to human activity today it would sort of be like the the arsonist arguing in court that he should be found innocent because even we started a wildfire wildfire wildfires happen naturally right so why should I be get blamed for this one wildfire it sort of like.
"marshall institute" Discussed on WRVA
"Line and includes a richer metro we could see gusts of up to twenty five miles an hour today Thursday test will follow Marshall instituted an independent indefinite burn band because of the dry conditions and I go in Hanover made similar moves eight new numbers out from the centers for disease control the growing number of baby related illnesses ABC's Alex stone has more with new numbers in the CDC says he now knows of one thousand eighty long injury cases linked to you cigarettes in vaping the patients are in forty eight states nineteen people have now died from vaping and E. cigarette use most patients report they were using products containing THC about seventy percent of patients are. male and eighty percent are under thirty five years old thank us god lieutenant accused of stockpiling weapons and targeting Supreme Court justices prominent Democrats in TV journalists has pleaded guilty or from W. R. V.'s Matt deadline I'm Chris first son's alleged hit list was reportedly house speaker Nancy Pelosi senator Chuck Schumer and a number of CNN and MSNBC personality we actually played guilty to or drug and gun charges prosecutors had called him a domestic terrorist but never brought terrorism charges his lawyers say assigned didn't plan any attacks he faces up to thirty one years in prison when sentenced in January that damn why news radio W. R. yeah and I go based on tree has begun selling the first I coach product introducing it in the Atlanta area it's an alternative to conventional cigarettes used by millions overseas the I. because device heats tobacco but doesn't burn it in may the FDA approved the introduction of the I. Kerr of I go to the US where altri I has the rights to sell it under a deal with Philip Morris your next news at nine news on demand that news radio W. R. V. A. dot com I'm Gerry has on rich's news weather and traffic station news radio.
"marshall institute" Discussed on WRVA
"The Pearson under dot com weather center partly cloudy in seventy two degrees in Glenallen news radio W. R. V. A. time eight thirty two. the White House today will send house speaker Nancy Pelosi a letter daring her to hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry will also say the White House won't comply with the Democrats investigation dell will coincide with the letter house minority leader Kevin McCarthy sent to pelo see Thursday president from Costa star Thursday when he called on China to investigate Joe Biden supporters of the moving glued Senate homeland security chair Ron Johnson is that he doesn't think there's anything improper about doing that B. B. Mike pence also made clear he backs the president and believe he's raising appropriate issues we're learning more about the text messages exchanged by US diplomats in Europe and now provided to Congress by the former US envoy to Ukraine Serena Marshall has more the top American diplomat in Ukraine bill Taylor Texas I think it's crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign the **** to the European Union Gordon's on land responded I believe you were incorrect about president trump's intentions the president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo of any kind but sign Linda then adding I suggest we stop the back and forth by taxed members of the house intelligence committee today scheduled interview inspector general of the intelligence community Michael Atkinson his office handled the whistle blower complaint a warning of increased fire danger for today's been issued by the National Weather Service covers an area for the northern neck to the North Carolina line and includes a richer metro we could see gusts of up to twenty five miles an hour today Thursday test will follow Marshall instituted an independent indefinite burn band because of the dry conditions.
"marshall institute" Discussed on Drilled
"Previously on drilled these Vittori walls which it became clear were part of a very comprehensive Exxon Mobil Climate Change Communication Plan whereby they took out editorials every Thursday between nineteen seventy two and in the two thousands we started digging into oil companies comprehensive media influence strategies strategies in the last episode and will continue following those strategies today we know that they attempted to influence reporters and editors through accusations of bias that they paid scientists to promote wrote theories their own scientists had proven false in that they created the op ad which effectively shifted coverage of climate change in the same way that oil company publicists were able to weaponize denies journalists insecurities about bias against them. They're also able to exploit certain vulnerabilities and science communication and science journalism. If an what we're good Dak the theory like if you look at the characteristics of what makes the GIG scientists it's actually often diametrically opposed to what makes the Akita here. That's climate scientists. Catherine turn Heyhoe a longtime leader in her field. She is a good communicator and she says between that and her gender she had to work twice as hard to earn credibility as a scientist senteced. This is something I heard over and over again from scientists that the general sense is if you're good at communicating you're either not good at science or you're not focused on the former. Exxon scientists Morrel Cohen said this to Omay general attitude would feel that there would be kind of dull Lucien of his scientific John too big focus she would be taken less seriously as scientists as a company that had long employed hundreds of scientists. Exxon Mobil nudist has two they also knew another key hallmark of science communication. It's a wash and uncertainty that's in part because of how science works predictions predictions that come true and repeatable studies and results build consensus over time but scientists never closed the door on another possible explanation it also has to to do with how science funding works only someone not interested in future research grants would fail to include the phrase more research is needed in their report knowing knowing that scientists would be caught off guard by the notion that they must be certain about something in that corporate execs are generally better communicating than scientists. The oil industry was able continuously call climate modeling into question even as companies like Exxon and mobile were using those same models to prospect for fossil fuels. Here's former are excellent. CEO Lee Raymond giving his speech in the nineties more than a decade after his own companies scientists have said there is consensus in the scientific community around on climate change remains inconclusive as to whether human activities affect global climate it all played into the industry he's strategy for victory and we know that because they wrote it down in a memo that was actually published in the New York Times in the late nineteen nineties in it members of the American Petroleum Institute indicate that victory will be achieved when they can successfully help people air quotes understand that there are uncertainties in climate science. What's that quote. Recognition of uncertainties becomes part of the air quotes again conventional wisdom another another measure of victory media coverage reflects balance on climate science and recognition of the validity viewpoints that challenged the current conventional wisdom. The Stated Project Goal in the victory memo is a majority of the American public including industry leadership recognizes that significant uncertainties tease exist in climate science and therefore raises questions among those eeg congress who chart the future US course on climate change. Here's our document MCI Kurt Davies with that they said victory will be achieved when we get uncertainty into people's mouths and they talked about targeting Science Teachers Shire's and Congress people and reporters specifically and when media is turned around that we will achieve success and then if we don't do this now there may be no moment when we can declare victory for efforts like they knew it was now or never in nineteen ninety eight. He's getting away from the key. Goal of the victory strategy was to ensure that the Kyoto protocol would not be a binding one in fact one of the bullet points in the portion of the memo that defines what victory would look like says says quote victory will be achieved when those promoting the Kyoto Treaty on the basis of extant science appear to be out of touch with reality they have metrics on how they're going to win how many members of Congress number of talk show appearances percent of media very scientific multimillion dollar budgets. It's on data centers and outreach and media and so forth and then good evidence of the funding which go back to the nine hundred ninety eight memo. They talked about specific funding sources. API Business Roundtable at Electric Independent Petroleum Association of America Gotcha and National Mining Association and their members so they thought they would go out to these trade associations plus the membership which is all the oil companies all the coal companies all all of business and then run that money through Alec see fact better presents do French's Freedom Marshall Institute so it it was on the front page of the New York Times and there you have the team which includes two people who were on the trump transition team and multiple groups groups and companies Exxon Southern Company and Chevron were in this room developing this plan. Even though it was front page New York Times they went ahead with the plan outlined in this victory memo was crafted twenty years after Exxon scientists had told executives what was happening and how bad it could be excellent. Scientists at Garvey had long since left the company by this point and says he watched in horror as they worked to undermine everything he and his colleagues had done and on a very scary. I felt kind of Foulis that point. I really think we had something in excellent. We're going to be an energy company and we recognize this problem and so we're going to help direct the country away from fossil fuels and instead of just knowledge. I JUST WANNA make money on oil and they don't really care what happens. It's I mean develop. Sets me her. It was definitely a missed opportunity to beat. I do think that if Exxon maybe oil accompanied leaned on government in the eighties do this government would have come around there. Were several key narratives crafted to achieve this quote victory and let's make no mistake. The strategy was in fact victorious. Despite the fact that the memo was published in The New York Times on the cover. The strategy was nonetheless executed as laid out and as you heard there from Kurt some of the same folks working in the trump administration today we're part of drafting acting that memo twenty years ago the most successful narratives included not just underscoring the supposed uncertainty of the science but also painting those concerned about climate change as liberals and hippies again people who are completely out of touch with reality it was the original gas lighting making people feel crazy easy for believing something that there was actually a ton of evidence for these campaigns also pushed the idea that acting on climate change was equivalent to undoing the industrial revolution and and they highlighted the social responsibility initiatives of oil companies to counterbalance their inaction on climate. Perhaps the most insidious narrative instilling in the American public the idea that solve global warming is up to individuals not systems that it's about you driving too much or eating too much meat for changing your your light bulbs not any sort of broader systemic change. This is something oil companies repeat over and over again today in presenting on the history you've climate science to a judge in San Francisco earlier this year Chevron Attorney Ted Boutros focused on the idea of oil companies simply supplying demand never remind that they also created that demand in made sure that no one knew there was a downside to it. The Gospel of individual responsibility always plays ball with American audiences of course course and this is no exception that idea perhaps more than any other is so pervasive. It's the first thing most people will say when climate change comes up up last month when the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Thi- PCC released its most recent and by far most straightforward and alarming report ever indicating that we have roughly twelve years to act on climate a large segment of the media devoted at least part of their coverage to the individual actions citizens can take to help go vegetarian go solar drive electric cars all good stuff but in making individuals responsible for the solution. We suddenly hang the blame for the problem on them in their choices as well. The Industry has also excelled in promoting mixed messages doing just enough climate science to seem legit admitting just enough truths not to seem totally illogical logical or to use one of their own phrases out of touch with reality. Here's science historian. Naomi arrestees on that strategy. One of the reasons that it's so easy for people people to sow doubt about climate change or any other issue is that if confusion is your goal mixed messages are very effective strategy so you can you say a lot of different things and some of them may well be true and you can even quote out of context at true things you have said in order to make it seem as if you're quite reasonable. L. As if you're not denying climate change as if you're operating good faith and that you are an entity to be trusted but if you look at the total body the things that have been said by Exxon Mobil or any of these other groups that have been involved in climate disinformation what you see is this landscape of mixed messages in which you know there's probably some truth mixed in with an awful lot of falsehood and misinformation nowhere was this entire media strategy more apparent than in the.
"marshall institute" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"So I think we made a lot of progress on we built on that progress. The other thing that I want to emphasize though, is that the stereotypes that whites have of blacks, even that African Americans have of themselves is based partly on government policy, certainly of the legacy of slavery. But when when African Americans were a an enslaved people and people developed images of what African Americans were Cape beloved at that time that's been handed down through the generations. But a lot of the stereotypes that we developed in the twentieth century we meaning whites developed in the twenty. Th century, if African Americans we're government created when we take people and concentrate them in overcrowded neighborhoods without adequate public services of where they have to pay more for housing than whites have to pay for similar housing, and therefore have to double up and overcrowd- their homes subdivide them live largely on the streets because their homes so crowded whites looked at those neighborhoods and said, we'll African Americans slumdwellers don't want them in my neighborhood, if the government hadn't created African American slum conditions as a result of purposeful, racial policy. Whites might not have developed such strong stereotypes of their superiority to African Americans. So it's hard to say how far we would have gone if it had not been for these government policies. I'm not suggesting as I said that we would have utopia, but we've gone a lot. Farther than we have today. Richard Rothstein is with the Economic Policy Institute and the Thurgood Marshall institute of the N W C P legal defense fund, the book that we've been discussing is the color of law of forgotten history of how our government segregated America. And I it will change. I think it did. For me the way you think about raisins, segregation and the constitution in this country, Richard. Thank you, very very much for your time. That's it. From me for this week's episode of amicus. Thank you so much to slates Marcus of stern for helming the show this week..
"marshall institute" Discussed on Amicus with Dahlia Lithwick
"Sometimes it's important to think about how the courts and the law have succeeded and other times, it's useful to think about how they failed and you're about to hear a conversation that unpacked the history of housing, segregation and the systemic and concerted efforts that supported that segregation this discussion is based on a really powerful. And I think impactful book about law and segregation that was written by Richard Rothstein. The book is called the color of law forgotten history of how our government segregated America. It was published in two thousand seventeen it has won multiple awards. And it knocked my socks up. When I read it. It's really and truly transformational in terms of how you come to think about the difference between defacto and Detroit segregation and the systems that allow for both Richard Rothstein a research associate of the Economic Policy Institute of fellow at the third good Marshall institute of the ACP legal defense fund. Richard welcome to amicus. Thank you very much. I think I want to start by telling you that, you know, one of the enduring tropes of constitutional thinking that I took away from law school was that Brown versus board of education, fixes everything in nineteen fifty four that as soon as the court formalized, you know, and constitutionalize the idea of school desegregation to jury race discrimination blows up, and I think in about a million ways, your book shows that housing discrimination was and still is as pernicious school discrimination. So if what I just said is descriptively, correct, Richard. Can you talk about how we started fetish izing school desegregation, as the corrective here, it wasn't Joe school, you know, after Brown versus board of education, we tackled segregation. And everything from lunch counters, two water, fountains, two buses, interstate transportation and in all of. Those cases we understood that they were unconstitutional because they were required by government policy by law by regulation despite having come to the understanding that racial. Segregation was not only on constitutional. It was wrong. It was immoral. It was harmful to both African Americans whites we've left untouched. The biggest segregation of all which is that every metropolitan area in this country is residential segregated and every one of them has clearly defined areas. Neighborhoods that are white or all white or mostly white clearly defined areas. They're African American mostly African American. It's not that we tried to desegregate neighborhoods and had failed. You never even tried. We all consider part of the natural environment. We think it's a unfortunate. Nobody thinks it's a good thing. But we think there's nothing we can do about it because we say that unlike the other forms of segregation, what the court closed the jury segregation this one wasn't. Caused by government. This one wasn't created by law by policy by regulation. This one just sort of happened it happened because oh individuals wouldn't sell homes to people of the opposite race or real estate agents or banks private institutions discriminated or maybe people just like to live with each other of the same race. Or maybe it's just an economic thing that have forgotten Americans typically have low incomes and the lower incomes than whites and can't afford to live in middle class white neighborhoods for all of these reasons racial segregation in neighborhoods arose, and we tell ourselves that because unlike the other forms of segregation, this one wasn't created by government, then we don't have responsibility to do anything about it..
"marshall institute" Discussed on The Money Coach Ronda Cobb
"I'm ready to make my credits. Can I'm ready to take classes from university. That will help me build a my experience it prepare me for the future university. That will make me feel supported a courage and connected. Click this ad or go to online ODU dot EDU today. Hi, everybody gets round to the money tonight. Glad to we've incident. Oh, today's guests is just awesome. Is that often you get to speak to someone who is a distinguished alot of the Economic Policy Institute and senior fellow mayor to at the third Marshall institute of the end AA C P legal defense fund. And now he's going to talk about his recent book, which is really going to be an eye open discussion persona many people the book is called the color of law. He's also the author of many other articles in books on race and to kitchen, and he can be founded its web page at the Economic Policy Institute. So welcome to the show, Richard Rothstein? How are you today? Richard fine. Thank you. Thanks very much. I cannot believe when we first got to me, it was months ago, and you given a presentation about this. But and I was just fascinating all the some of the things that I had sort of suspected all along proved up to be so true. So I'm going to open it up really really wide open for you jealous with the main thing you want people to to learn and digest when the reading this book, the color of lot in the subtitle of it is for everybody up forgotten history of how our government segregated America. The book the color of law shows that the popular myth that neighborhoods in this country are segregated what we call defacto by private prejudice or the actions of actors in the private economy or personal bigotry or people. Why to live with each other this a total myth? The reason we have residential segregation and every metropolitan area in this country is in large part because very explicit racial policy. Not just in the south, but in the north in the mid west in the west that was explicitly designed to ensure that African Americans whites could not live near one another. There were many many federal state and local policies that were coordinated to this end. And the result is that we have residential segregation everywhere that's as much of a civil rights violation as civil rights violations that we remedied in the twentieth century, whether it was segregation of water, fountains or lunch counters or buses or schools or colleges all of these we considered unconstitutional, civil rights violations that we were obligated to remedy because government was involved in creating that segregation. Will the same thing is true of residential segregation it is unconstitutional because it was government created sponsored perpetuated. It's a civil rights violation. And under our constitution. We have an obligation to remedy it. That's the main theme of the book the book spends some time describing some of the policies that the federal state and local governments follow to ensure residential segregation these will once well known as you mentioned a minute ago. The subtitle of the book is forgotten history of how our government segregated America. This was no mystery to people in the twentieth century, but because it's difficult to undo all these policies, we've adopted a rationalization this myth of de facto segregation that wasn't created by government. It's an excuse that we give ourselves for not doing anything about it. And we forget the history. So that we're not reminded that this is not an accident. Not defacto, but something that was created by government. I can't tell you how many times over the last few years that I've heard Ohno, you know, people live where they live because that's where
"marshall institute" Discussed on WCPT 820
"On this is vince version consultant with his dot com nickelback family meeting so i figured a little big daddy thing but the word debbie you man yeah that'd be like that is heavy divorce where every man good dance just a great man some of the grace of don things welcome back the number seven seven three seven six three nine two seven eight so we've got a guest on the line let me bring him in here if i can transition correctly ritchie there yes i am hey richard this is richard rothstein fellow hey richard fellow for the economic policy institute senior fellow emeritus at the thurgood marshall institute of the legal defense fund and the haas institute at the university of cal berkeley and he's here because he's the author of the book well it was published about a year ago a little bit more than a year ago thank you i watched richard participate in an interview with my man tiny he's the coach and he talked about really kind of the story of the book how america segregated government segregated america.
"marshall institute" Discussed on #WeThePeople LIVE
"Merchants of doubt here by naomi in a omri a risky i have is a good value at as well as a good movie halls of the same name so entering very quickly according to the emails as uncovered by the new york times by naunton 88 that he nine the fossil fuel companies with thinking about this and he miles shows that they went backwards and forwards and they came to a realization that i had two choices choice number one go with the science is quite clear the assad is a quite clear it is real i mean if if your if you have a three year old child with some sort of terrible cancer and the pdf young colleges says look i don't think we should go with the blessing i think we should go cycle fossil maude a you going to trust what a random person from a nonacademic sought says on we could pdo says on the admit or you're gonna trust a pediatric oncologists with 24 these of knowledge what you're going to go with assad is so back then the fossil fuel companies in it emails quite clearly show that i said okay the climate scientists are wrought should would eat number one admitted there wrought change our cells from fossil fuel companies into energy companies or should we take the guaranteed way out of do business in you as usual and set up and pay four and massively fund had big fat disinformation campaign and they did they went down at second pathway and they've got the big bucks and george c marshall institute in washington dc read that book so they've gone down that path way and so it's been can because a dieter is now getting even stronger that the average person couldn't see unit assad is you can say that there are more big storms more big sought lines the extremes are happening more and more frequently you can't point to any one and say was that storm caused by climate change well no you can't in the same way a smoker cannot say look was at the secret that i had at four p m on the 25th of january in two thousand three was that the one that i should have avoided to avoid getting lung cancer now you we we.
"marshall institute" Discussed on WGN Radio
"Va to move into those singlefamily homes a gained over the next few generations a half a million dollars an equity uh the african american families who were prohibited from doing so we're renting apartments gained no equity the result is that today uh africanamerican incomes are sixty percent with six o percent of white incomes for that frican american wealth is only 10 percent of white wealth and then enormous disparity between the sixty percent income ratio when a ten percent wealth ratio is entirely attributable to unconstitutional federal housing policy practised the 20th century and it determines the inequality that we see today had the the white family gained that equity of use that to uh send their children to college to take care of emergencies and to decrease it to their own children who could then use it for them payments and in homes worth nick grandchildren for the same purpose african americans had none of those advantages and so if you look at the metropolitan landscape today and you see many african americans renting homes in urban neighbourhoods and many white families owning singlefamily homes in the suburbs which we continue to subsidize with them mortgage interest deduction you can understand that the this is all the result of unconstitutional federal policy was racially based explicitly racially based in the may 20th century this is an important conversation we need to continue it again the book is very interesting i again it's called the color of law forgotten history of how our government segregated america the author is richard rothstein he is also a research associate at the economic policy institute and a fellow at the third good marshall institute of the end double acp legal defense fund richard thank you so much for talking to us today it's really a great read everyone she go pick up a copy because it's important that we keep this conversation going especially here in chicago we have a lot of these issues were still dealing with today so thank you for all of your hard work thank you very much absolutely.
"marshall institute" Discussed on WGN Radio
"Music and this week were here in some jams from montrose man we've talked to the past on this program how chicago for all its diversity is still segregated by race this segregation has really impacted how neighborhoods have developed over the years and there's this idea that chicago another u us cities became racially divided because of the actions of private institutions like banks in real estate companies but author richard rothstein argues that it was actually laws passed by local state and federal governments that promoted racial segregation that still continues today his book that came out in may's call the color of law a forgotten history of how our government segregated america he's also a research associate at the economic policy institute and a fellow at the third good marshall institute of the end double acp legal defense fund he joins us this morning from california richard good morning nice to talk to you good morning so let's get some context for what you're talking about in the book because this is a a really important topic and you know so many neighborhoods in cities and the 20th century in the united states were deemed undesirable by like i said banks in real estate agents and when you look at it it's all because of race and that created what we call defacto segregation life this just how we were doing things i know that's only part of the story but it is an important context for what you're talking about here right yes while the the lack of investment in urban neighbourhoods where americans lived through only part of the story a much more powerful part of the story is the conscious purposeful effort of the federal government to suburban is the white urban population into singlefamily homes throughout the 1940s and fifties and sixties this was an explicit racial policy the federal housing administration finance the developers of large subdivisions in chicago and suburbs and in the suburbs of every city in this country on condition that no homes resold to african americans and the federal housing administration even required that the homes in these largescale developments have clauses in their deeds the prohibited resale to african americans so this resulted in a white news created around urban african american neighborhoods and the if.
"marshall institute" Discussed on AM 1590 WCGO
"Fifteen ninety french friends w segio here honor to have richard rothstein on the show right now research associate of the economic policy institute a fellow at the third good marshall institute of the end double acp legal defense fund he's written probably the most important book regarding public affairs of the year the color of law forgotten history of how our government segregated america mr rothstein good afternoon sir good afternoon are you are getting a lotta pushed back on this book or you see is being received with open arms the promises that the government is part and parcel of the problem of segregation and has continued these policies for decades upon decades on quite unconstitutionally odd you do you run into a lotta people who just can't accept the results of your findings no uh i think most people who read the book of hurt me speak about it are stunned by history that they weren't aware of the subtitle the book is you know is a forgot history of our government segregated america and the policies of the federal government the state local governments as well to segregate metropolitan areas uh well once wellknown both have been forgotten and the because they've been forgotten too we haven't addressed remedies for these unconstitutional policies but i think that the documentation the by providers so exhaustive persuasive that i don't give a push back history i'm telling people are puzzled about what to do about it and what i tell them is that because we were unconstitutional policies and therefore under our constitution require a remedy we're not going to be able to discuss remedies so people familiar i from cells with this history and that's the purpose of my book on that of others who write about these issues well i at the risk of your being tired of being asked this question now with your answer there in mind lets start started the very beginning in describe defacto racial segregation versus did your segregation can you give us the short one sure the facto segregation of is what most people believe we have most people believe are metropolitan areas of segregated the fact though and what that means is that they're segregated.
"marshall institute" Discussed on Talk 1260 KTRC
"Out i'm and i think guy and if you wanna follow these two on twitter which you should you should check out james at sea a d u g wi and you can find dean yell on twitter at danny d a n ny in d c so james let me start with you because i am super excited about the thurgood marshall institute but some of our listeners may not be familiar with the institute and some of the work that you're doing it lde f thanks so much macho silver thurgood marshall institute for some form of i'm excited to it's a new multi disciplinary research and advocacy hub at the legal defense fund simply it is a legacy organization which has existed since nineteen forty who founded by thurbers marshall brown be bored it's of the elder retooling for the twenty for centuries we can we meet the moment in civil rights and i mean when you think about the attacks on civil rights it it seems like this was a perfect time were the answer to that come in severe it really was and this really is just a comprehensive circumstances the idea for the institute came up during the of the director cattle ship of elaine jones the first woman to be director complel vf but my law school commencement speaker and i search miss jones down i like tractor over the us air ruined i went to her like two or three times the numbers like miss jones you have to speak out my law school bailey day and she did thank you mr president and show on i four who is now the president director countless louisville really kick that into overdrive and launched the institute in twenty six team and so coming.