Website offers chance to 'live under a rock' during election week

Oct. 8 (UPI) -- An accommodation-booking website is offering weary voters an escape from "election stress disorder" with the opportunity to "live under a rock" for the week of the election.

Hotels.com said the Nov. 2-7 stay in a man-made cave 50 feet below ground in New Mexico will be available to book on its website on a first-come, first-served basis at 9 a.m. Friday.

The website said the opportunity is perfect for "those who are experiencing election stress disorder (this is a real thing!)."

The five-night stay costs an "Abraham Lincoln-inspired" $5 per night.

"After you've cast your ballot, you can check out of the newsfeed negativity and check in to a man-made cave built 50 feet below ground," the website said.

Hotels.com said it will also be offering a 20 percent discount on selected properties with "rock" in the name using the coupon code "UnderARock" starting Friday morning.

"Political fatigue is real regardless of the year or election," said Josh Belkin, vice president of Hotels.com.

"We're transforming an age-old idiom into a bookable experience, so individuals can relax, recharge, and recover... because who knows what else 2020 has in store for us."

https://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2020/10/08/Website-offers-chance-to-live-under-a-rock-during-election-week/8211602170666/

 

Climate Science Denial: The Motte-and-Bailey Logic Fallacy

The motte is the structure on the high ground and the bailey is 

below and inside the fenced area:

the bailey is easier to attack than the motte

(10th century technology)

Wikipedia: The motte-and-bailey fallacy (named after the motte-and-bailey castle) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy where an arguer conflates two positions which share similarities, one modest and easy to defend (the "motte") and one much more controversial (the "bailey").[1] The arguer advances the controversial position, but when challenged, they insist that they are only advancing the more modest position.[2][3] Upon retreating to the motte, the arguer can claim that the bailey has not been refuted (because the critic refused to attack the motte)[1] or that the critic is unreasonable (by equating an attack on the bailey with an attack on the motte).

Employing logic fallacies to deceive, distract, disinform and so forth is a common tactic among purveyors of dark free speech or epistemic terrorism. In the vice presidential debate, Mike Pence used the motte-and-bailey fallacy to deceive and confuse people about climate change. At the Neurologica blog, Steve Novella explains it nicely:

“Pence represented the typical denial strategy. He started by saying that the climate is changing, we just don’t know why or what to do about it. This is the motte and bailey fallacy in action – pull back from the position that is untenable to defend an easier position, but don’t completely surrender the outer position. Pence was not about to deny that global warming is happening at all in that forum because he would be too easily eviscerated, so he just tried to muddy the waters on what may seem like an easier point.

But of course, he is completely wrong on both counts. We do know what is causing climate change, it is industrial release of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. At least there is a strong consensus of scientists who are 95% confident or more this is the major driver, and there is no tenable competing theory. That is what a scientific fact looks like. We also know what to do about it – decrease global emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases. And we know how to do that – change our energy infrastructure to contain more carbon neutral sources with the goal of decarbonizing energy. Change our transportation industry as much as possible over to electric (or perhaps hydrogen) vehicles. Advance other industrial processes that release significant amounts of CO2. And look for ways to improve energy efficiency and sequester carbon efficiently. It’s not like there aren’t actual detailed published plans for exactly what to do about it.

Pence, however, will rush from his perceived motte into the bailey of total denial when he feels he has an opening. So he also said that the “climate change alarmists” are warning about hurricanes, but we are having the same number of hurricanes today as we did 100 years ago. This is not literally true (there were six hurricanes so far this year in the North Atlantic, and four in 1920), and it looks from the graph like there is a small uptick, but let’s say it’s true enough that statistically there isn’t a significant change in the number of hurricanes. This is called lying with facts – give a fact out of context that creates a deliberately false impression. In this case the false impression is also a straw man, because climate scientists don’t claim that global warming increases the number of hurricanes. They claim (their models predict) that warming increases the power and negative effects from the hurricanes that do occur.

Pence next tried to take credit for dropping CO2 release from the US, as if this is tied to pulling out of the Paris Accord. It is true that CO2 emissions are decreasing, but this is a trend that has been fairly linear since 2005. Between 2005 and 2018 US CO2 emissions dropped 12%. This is largely due to shifting energy production to less CO2 producing methods, including rising renewables. But also, I will acknowledge, this is partly due to a shift from coal to natural gas. There has been a huge drop in coal as a percentage of US energy. Pence selectively used this fact to defend natural gas, glossing over the fact that this is a greater knock against coal, which he does not want to criticize.

Admittedly a live debate is not the place to get into all these details, but pretty much everything Pence said on the climate was misleading and tracked with fossil fuel industry talking points rather than the scientific consensus.”

A couple of things merit comment. 

First, Trump, Pence and the GOP generally have been ruthlessly using logic flaws, lies and deceptive rhetoric for decades to confuse people and sow doubt in the face of contrary climate science evidence they cannot refute using either evidence (facts) or sound reasoning (~logic). Since they do that with climate science, it seems reasonable to believe that they would do that for all other things they dislike or want to deny, science-related or not.

Second, special interests with threatened economic interests have been doing the same thing for decades. 

Third, conservative politicians and special interests who distort or deny realities based on science or anything else are deeply immoral in their unwarranted distortions and denials. In this regard, they are moral cowards.

Politics and Birth Control: What You Need to Know

 Dear Cornelia,

Can you please explain to me what’s going on in the news? Is President Trump going to limit my access to birth control? Do I need to stock up before the election? 

-Politically Pressed

Hello My Dear Politically Pressed,

Right now may feel like a scene right out of The Handmaid’s Tale. So much is out of our control! Let me start by clearing things up for you, which I hope will ease your mind.

First of all, Trump himself cannot “limit your access to birth control.” Right now, insurance companies are required to pay for contraceptives under the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare or ACA). The Affordable Care Act also allows you to stay on your parent’s insurance plan until age 26 and get free mammograms, among many other things.

Right now the Affordable Care Act is under pressure, which means your access to birth control may be under pressure. But not from Trump. The future of the Affordable Care Act lies in the hands of the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear arguments on the ACA exactly one (!) week after the election. However, the results will likely not be announced until the spring of 2021— the end of the Supreme Court’s session. Let me say that again: The status of your insurance-covered contraceptives will not change until this spring at the earliest. And no guarantee. T-God! So no, you do not need to “stock-up” on birth control. In fact, I’m not even sure that’s legal.

Now, as you know, with the tragic passing of Cornell’s very own Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg ’54, Trump will likely replace her seat in the court with conservative Amy Coney Barrett. It’s still up in the air whether or not Barrett could hear arguments on the ACA this November. But things are looking promising for Amy Coney Barrett, and not so promising for the Affordable Care Act.

Let’s just say hypothetically the Affordable Care Act is struck down. What will happen? If the ACA contraceptive coverage is changed or eliminated, the requirement for the coverage of contraceptives will fall onto the states. Unfortunately, only 28 states require insurance plans to cover contraceptives. Another issue: only 59 percent of workers are covered by state-regulated plans. The other  61 percent are insured by private plans, and the law will no longer require private plans to cover contractive costs. It is likely that without the ACA, millions of women will lose birth-control coverage.

To answer your question, your access to birth control will depend on what happens in the Supreme Court. Then, it depends on what state you live in and what your plan looks like.

The grim reality is that next spring, contraceptive coverage is likely to look much different. But it won’t go away completely. Look for insurance plans that include contraceptive coverage. Ask your employer. Don’t fret: There are other options for birth control. Planned Parenthood here in Ithaca can provide birth control options for next to nothing.

The best way to protect your access to birth control is to vote. The representatives we elect this fall will either be involved in defining the ACA or building new legislation to replace it. Let’s make sure our leaders know what we want.

Cheers,

Cornelia

https://cornellsun.com/2020/10/01/sex-on-thursday-politics-and-birth-control-what-you-need-to-know//

When is yours?

When do you do your “best” (as in clearest, most logical, most creative, most productive, etc.) thinking?  Do you even have a/some “peak performance” situation?   

Is it maybe:

• Upon waking up in the morning
• In the dark of the night, when you can’t sleep
• That time right before going to sleep
  
• When experiencing daydreams
• When under a lot of pressure (more chaotic situations)
• When under the influence of mind-altering drugs or alchol 
• Listening to your favorite music
• Reading a good book
• When you are able to separate your emotions/feelings from your thinking
• When you are angry
• Out in nature
• Sitting on the crapper (hey, who am I to question that? 😱)
• I’m always at peak performance... the “consummate thinker”
• I've never even noticed or thought about the concept of "clear thinking"
  
• Other (mix and match your personal specs)

So, give us the perfect scenario for your best thinking.

And thanks for recommending.