510 research outputs found
Wes Moore: The Thin Line Between Happiness and Tragedy
No full textWes Moore is an Army combat veteran, national bestselling author, and social entrepreneur. He is committed to helping young people redirect their lives and supporting the parents, teachers, mentors and volunteers who care for, and work with, our nation\u27s youth.
Moore graduated Phi Theta Kappa from Valley Forge Military College in 1998 and Phi Beta Kappa from Johns Hopkins University in 2001. While a student at Johns Hopkins he founded STAND!, which works with Baltimore youth involved in the criminal justice system and still exists today. Moore completed a MLitt in International Relations from Oxford University as a Rhodes Scholar in 2004. Upon graduation, he served as a captain in the United States Army, completing a tour to Afghanistan as a paratrooper with the 82nd Airborne Division.
His first book, The Other Wes Moore, became an instant New York Times and Wall Street Journal bestseller as a story that conveys the importance of individual decisions as well as community support. He is also the host of Beyond Belief on the Oprah Winfrey Network and Executive Producer and host of Coming Back with Wes Moore on PBS.
Moore is the Founder and CEO of BridgeEdU, an innovative college completion platform that addresses the college completion and career placement crisis by reinventing the freshman year in a way that engages students in real-world internships and service learning opportunities. He has been featured by USA Today, People Magazine, Meet the Press, The Colbert Report , The View, MSNBC, and NPR, among many others
Scientific Knowledge Fraud
No full text46 pagesThe tobacco, asbestos, and fossil fuel industries, among others, have misled the public about the dangers posed by their products by lying about the science behind the products. Individuals harmed by these misrepresentations should be able to sue for fraud. Plaintiffs in fraud cases of this kind—where the misrepresentation pertains to scientific knowledge—face far greater obstacles to proving falsity, a required fraud element, than do typical fraud plaintiffs. Accordingly, a different falsity standard should apply in such cases. This Article answers three questions about how that standard should be crafted and applied
From The Ground Up: Conversations With Wes Jackson
No full textAs human societies hurtle toward collapse, we’re going to need good science, appropriate teaching, and the best of our neighborly traditions to get through. In From the Ground Up, Wes Jackson discusses the challenges and opportunities. He’s a scientist with a sharp analytical mind to evaluate the data, and a lively storyteller who can reach back into the past for lessons that will be essential in a down-powering world.
Jackson supplemented the education he got growing up on a Kansas truck farm with a Ph.D. in genetics, leading to a university career. But he gave that up to start an alternative school and a research center that is now at the heart of work in sustainable agriculture. Along the way, he sharpened his storytelling skills, which are on display in this edited version of podcasts recorded in 2020 with his friend and collaborator Robert Jensen.
Contents
Foreword by Linda Ronstadt
Introduction by Robert Jensen
Intellectual Grounding
Respecting Your Tools
Mad About Science
Methodism to My Madness
The Portrait of an Artist as an Old Man
Bibliography
About the Authors
Contributors
Wes Jackson is cofounder and president emeritus of The Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. He is the author and editor of numerous books, including Hogs Are Up: Stories of the Land, with Digressions and New Roots for Agriculture.
Robert Jensen is professor emeritus in the School of Journalism and Media at the University of Texas at Austin. He is the author of many books, including The Restless and Relentless Mind of Wes Jackson: Searching for Sustainability and Plain Radical: Living, Loving, and Learning to Leave the Planet Gracefully.
Bill Vitek is Director of the New Perennials Project and New Perennials Publishing, and a Scholar in Residence at Middlebury College. Vitek taught philosophy for 32 years at Clarkson University, always with the objective of helping students understand that the philosophical imagination can, and must, do useful work in the world. Much of his work has engaged ecological issues, including collaborations with Wes Jackson and The Land Institute for over three decades. Vitek and Jackson co-edited two books, Rooted in the Land: Essays on Community and Place (1996) and The Virtues of Ignorance: Complexity, Sustainability, and the Limits of Knowledge (2008).
</p
by R. Wes Harrison and Everald McLennon
No full textby R. Wes Harrison and Everald Mclennon Conjoint analysis is used to measure the preferences of United States consumers for labeling of biotech foods. The study found that consumers overwhelmingly support mandatory labeling of biotech foods. Results also showed the preferred labeling format is a text disclosure that describes the benefits of biotechnology in combination with a biotech logo. These results imply that U.S. consumers would support a revision of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's voluntary labeling policies. This may result in GMO labeling policies similar to those of the European Union, Australia, and New Zealand. Agricultural biotechnology (AB) is broadly defined as a collection of scientific techniques that involves taking the genes from one plant or animal species and inserting them in another species to transfer a desired trait or characteristic . For farmers, AB ha s led to reduced production costs, enhanced yields, and the potential for increased profits. Public benefits of AB include reductions in pesticide and herbicide use, as well as enhanced nutritional value, flavor, and shelf life of some foods. Despite these benefits, consumer acceptance has been controversial, as some consumer and special interest groups have expressed concerns over the safety and environmental effects of biotech foods (USDA/ERS, 1991). This is largely due to fears that AB may have some unforeseen health risks, as well as, unforeseen negative effects on wildlife and the environment. Consumer concerns regarding the safety of AB have made labeling of these foods an important policy issue throughout the world. For instance, health and environmental concerns are particularly strong among European, Australian, and New Zealand consume..
Intended Injury: Transferred Intent and Reliance in Climate Change Fraud
No full textFor an intended injury the law is astute to discover even very remote causation. - Justice Thurgood Marshall
ExxonMobil, the world\u27s largest oil company, misled the public about climate change for at least two decades. Several states\u27 attorneys general have opened investigations into the potential criminality of the company\u27s conduct. The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has opened its own investigation. Criminal or not, however, ExxonMobil\u27s conduct closely resembles schemes carried out by the tobacco, asbestos, opioid, sugar, and leaded gasoline industries, among others. The scheme is always the same: there is a product that is both profitable and destructive, but its destructiveness is not readily apparent because the causal connection between the product and the harm it causes can only be bridged with scientific knowledge. Moreover, companies selling the product tell the public that the science linking the product to the harm it causes is unsettled when, in fact, the science is well-enough established to warrant regulation of the product and imposition of liability for harm caused by it. The corporate message of scientific doubt, in other words, does not square with what scientists know, making the assertion misleading, if not illegal
Disinformation and the First Amendment: Fraud on the Public
No full text(Excerpt)
Following the 2020 presidential election, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, along with most of the Republican Party, spread the false claim that the election had been stolen by Democrats. Joe Biden, so the claim went, had not been legitimately elected, and was therefore an illegitimate President and needed to be removed. This profitable falsehood6 became known as the “Big Lie.” It was not only baseless, but it was in fact made in spite of and in direct conflict with the overwhelming evidence debunking it. This did not stop people from believing it. Millions bought into the Big Lie, which has caused numerous harms. A few of them are worth noting here to illustrate the problem posed by harmful disinformation. One harm caused by the Big Lie was that it prompted Republicans in dozens of states to attempt to pass hundreds of voter suppression laws to combat nonexistent voter fraud. The irony of these laws is that, while the motivation behind them was a fictional threat to the electoral process, the effect of the laws is a real threat to the electoral process: disenfranchisement of American voters. The laws are designed to disenfranchise those voters Republicans view as likely to vote for someone other than the Republican candidate, a voting bloc that includes minority groups, college students, college graduates, and those living in and around cities.
In addition to an attack on voting rights, the Big Lie also caused the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. After weeks of false claims in the media of widespread election and voter fraud, the “Stop the Steal” rally was organized in Washington, D.C. There, after a string of speakers spread inflammatory rhetoric to the gathered crowd of thousands, Trump took the stage and told those in attendance he would “never concede” the election, which he called “stolen.” In the speech, Trump called on Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results. Trump’s speech contained falsehoods that inflamed the crowd, calling on those in attendance to go to the Capitol stating, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” while at the same time calling Biden “an illegitimate president.” Other Republicans also inflamed the crowd. Following the rally, the crowd marched on the Capitol, overwhelmed the police, and broke into the building. In addition to property damage and stolen items from the Capitol, five people died during the storming of the Capitol, including a Capitol Police officer. At least 138 police officers were injured, including fifteen hospitalized with severe injuries. For example, one D.C. Metro police officer “was hit six times with a stun gun,” suffered a heart attack, and “lost the tip of” one of his fingers. Another officer suffered “two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs,” another lost an eye, another “lost three fingers,” another was impaled “with a metal fence stake,” and a large number of officers suffered brain trauma, including several with concussions
Fraud Law and Misinfodemics
No full textDuring the COVID-19 pandemic, many on whom the public depended for truthful information purposefully or recklessly spread misinformation that put thousands at risk. The term “misinfodemic,” coined in 2019, describes such events where misinformation facilitates the spread of a disease or causes some other health-related outcome. Though the term was only recently defined, the recent misinfodemic was not a new or novel phenomenon. False information is spread to the public all the time. This often results in harm to public health. False claims are communicated by corporations seeking to mislead the public to make more money, by politicians to gain votes and support, and by media outlets to increase viewership and advertising revenue. Although these and other deceptions of the public for profit might be unethical, they are legal. This Article explores the question of why. There are two key components to this analysis, one centered on tort law and the other on the First Amendment. This Article will focus only on tort law aspects. This Article discusses how fraud law developed to focus almost exclusively on personal deceptions while almost entirely ignoring impersonal deceptions like deceptions of the public. As a result, there is most often no tort remedy available to individuals harmed by misinfodemics. This Article prescribes a fix for this gap in the law: treat fraud on the public like any other fraud by prohibiting misinformation and punishing those who spread it. Precedent and policy support imposing civil remedies against those who purposefully or recklessly mislead the public for gain. The important First Amendment aspects of this issue will be addressed in future scholarship
Disinformation and the First Amendment: Fraud on the Public
No full text(Excerpt)
Following the 2020 presidential election, the losing candidate, Donald Trump, along with most of the Republican Party, spread the false claim that the election had been stolen by Democrats. Joe Biden, so the claim went, had not been legitimately elected, and was therefore an illegitimate President and needed to be removed. This profitable falsehood6 became known as the “Big Lie.” It was not only baseless, but it was in fact made in spite of and in direct conflict with the overwhelming evidence debunking it. This did not stop people from believing it. Millions bought into the Big Lie, which has caused numerous harms. A few of them are worth noting here to illustrate the problem posed by harmful disinformation. One harm caused by the Big Lie was that it prompted Republicans in dozens of states to attempt to pass hundreds of voter suppression laws to combat nonexistent voter fraud. The irony of these laws is that, while the motivation behind them was a fictional threat to the electoral process, the effect of the laws is a real threat to the electoral process: disenfranchisement of American voters. The laws are designed to disenfranchise those voters Republicans view as likely to vote for someone other than the Republican candidate, a voting bloc that includes minority groups, college students, college graduates, and those living in and around cities.
In addition to an attack on voting rights, the Big Lie also caused the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. After weeks of false claims in the media of widespread election and voter fraud, the “Stop the Steal” rally was organized in Washington, D.C. There, after a string of speakers spread inflammatory rhetoric to the gathered crowd of thousands, Trump took the stage and told those in attendance he would “never concede” the election, which he called “stolen.” In the speech, Trump called on Vice President Mike Pence to overturn the election results. Trump’s speech contained falsehoods that inflamed the crowd, calling on those in attendance to go to the Capitol stating, “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore,” while at the same time calling Biden “an illegitimate president.” Other Republicans also inflamed the crowd. Following the rally, the crowd marched on the Capitol, overwhelmed the police, and broke into the building. In addition to property damage and stolen items from the Capitol, five people died during the storming of the Capitol, including a Capitol Police officer. At least 138 police officers were injured, including fifteen hospitalized with severe injuries. For example, one D.C. Metro police officer “was hit six times with a stun gun,” suffered a heart attack, and “lost the tip of” one of his fingers. Another officer suffered “two cracked ribs and two smashed spinal discs,” another lost an eye, another “lost three fingers,” another was impaled “with a metal fence stake,” and a large number of officers suffered brain trauma, including several with concussions
- …
