🔥 | Latest

Amazon, America, and Driving: Jason Hickel @jasonhickel This story is a real bombshell. Reporter Ryan Grim reveals that one of the biggest culprits of Amazon destruction is a US company, Blackstone, whose CEO is close friends with Trump and bankrolls the US Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell A Top Financier of Trump and McConnell Is a Driving Force Behind Amazo... Steve Schwarzman is the CEO of the Blackstone Group, which partially owns a Brazilian firm that is helping transform the Amazon from jungle to ... theintercept.com 3:27 AM Aug 28, 2019 Twitter Web App 6.5K Likes 6K Retweets spaceconveyor: feelingbluepolitics: feelingbluepolitics: catbirdseat4u: ➣  Go HERE for the dirt   — There’s plenty. Highest recommendation. https://theintercept.com/2019/08/27/amazon-rainforest-fire-blackstone/ “The companies have wrested control of land, deforested it, and helped build a controversial highway to their new terminal in the one-time jungle, all to facilitate the cultivation and export of grain and soybeans.” “Schwarzman, a founder of Blackstone, owns roughly a fifth of the company, making him one of the world’s richest men. In 2018, he was paid at least $568 million, which was, in fact, a drop from the $786 million he made the year before. He has been generous toward McConnell and [t]rump with that wealth. In 2016, he gave $2.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC and put Jim Breyer, McConnell’s billionaire brother-in-law, on the board of Blackstone. Two years later, Schwarzman kicked in $8 million to McConnell’s Super PAC.  “Blackstone employees have given well over $10 million to McConnell and his Super PAC over the years, making them the biggest source of direct financing over McConnell’s career. McConnell’s Senate campaign declined to comment. “Schwarzman is a close friend and adviser to [t]rump, and served as the chair of his Strategic and Policy Forum until it fell apart in the wake of the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, in which [t]rump famously praised 'very fine people, on both sides.’ In December 2017, as the final details of the GOP tax cut were being ironed out, Schwarzman hosted a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser for [t]rump. Some of [trump’s] dinner companions complained about the tax bill, and days later, [t]rump slashed the top percentage rate in the final package from 39.6 to 37.  …"Bolsonaro has plans to pave significantly more roads in the Amazon that have otherwise been impassable much of the year, a project made feasible by international financing. …"Of course, Hidrovias is also involved in paving B.R.-163 and other development projects in the region. Those projects, such as the paving of the highway, have additional indirect — though entirely predictable — consequences, as they spur side roads that make previously difficult-to-reach areas of the Amazon accessible for mining, logging, or further deforestation. …"A Blackstone spokesperson noted that the fund only owns 9.3 percent* of Hidrovias. But that ignores the 55.8 percent of Hidrovias that is owned by Pátria Investimentos. On Hidrovias’s website, Pátria is described as a company ‘in partnership with Blackstone,’ and it is known in the financial industry to be a Blackstone company.” *Pay no attention to claimed percentages of ownership. What goes on behind ownership curtains is fluidly incestuous. For example, from April 2019: Blackstone Transfers 35% Stake in Brazil’s Alphaville Urbanismo to Pátria (em português) “Blackstone transferred its 35% stake in Brazilian real estate developer Alphaville Urbanismo to its partner Pátria Investimentos. Blackstone and Pátria originally invested R$1.4b in June 2013 for a 70% stake in the company. The two firms formed a partnership in 2010 and Blackstone retains a 40% stake in Pátria.” —– Keep in mind, It’s not like this graft flows directly, or just one way. Trump USDA is paying millions to a shady Brazilian meatpacking company under DOJ, SEC investigation Brazil Subsidiary Hoovers Up $62 Million In Trump Trade War Aid Intended For Farmers Every American farmer who has lost their Chinese market for soybeans – all of them – should be wondering how it was that trump “woke up” one morning with his idea of a trade war with China. Had his close friend Schwartzman told trump the Brazilian road and terminal were ready? There is no question that the Amazon rainforest is burning right now to open new farm land in order to meet China’s soybean market. I wanted Blackstone to get fucked prior to this, now…now I want them to SUFFER.
Amazon, America, and Driving: Jason Hickel
 @jasonhickel
 This story is a real bombshell. Reporter Ryan Grim
 reveals that one of the biggest culprits of Amazon
 destruction is a US company, Blackstone, whose CEO
 is close friends with Trump and bankrolls the US
 Senate leader Republican Mitch McConnell
 A Top Financier of Trump and McConnell Is a Driving Force Behind Amazo...
 Steve Schwarzman is the CEO of the Blackstone Group, which partially owns
 a Brazilian firm that is helping transform the Amazon from jungle to ...
 theintercept.com
 3:27 AM Aug 28, 2019 Twitter Web App
 6.5K Likes
 6K Retweets
spaceconveyor:

feelingbluepolitics:


feelingbluepolitics:

catbirdseat4u:
➣  Go HERE for the dirt   — There’s plenty.
Highest recommendation.
https://theintercept.com/2019/08/27/amazon-rainforest-fire-blackstone/
“The companies have wrested control of land, deforested it, and helped build a controversial highway to their new terminal in the one-time jungle, all to facilitate the cultivation and export of grain and soybeans.”
“Schwarzman, a founder of Blackstone, owns roughly a fifth of the company, making him one of the world’s richest men. In 2018, he was paid at least $568 million, which was, in fact, a drop from the $786 million he made the year before. He has been generous toward McConnell and [t]rump with that wealth. In 2016, he gave $2.5 million to the Senate Leadership Fund, McConnell’s Super PAC and put Jim Breyer, McConnell’s billionaire brother-in-law, on the board of Blackstone. Two years later, Schwarzman kicked in $8 million to McConnell’s Super PAC. 
“Blackstone employees have given well over $10 million to McConnell and his Super PAC over the years, making them the biggest source of direct financing over McConnell’s career. McConnell’s Senate campaign declined to comment.
“Schwarzman is a close friend and adviser to [t]rump, and served as the chair of his Strategic and Policy Forum until it fell apart in the wake of the Charlottesville neo-Nazi rally, in which [t]rump famously praised 'very fine people, on both sides.’  In December 2017, as the final details of the GOP tax cut were being ironed out, Schwarzman hosted a $100,000-a-plate fundraiser for [t]rump. Some of [trump’s] dinner companions complained about the tax bill, and days later, [t]rump slashed the top percentage rate in the final package from 39.6 to 37. 
…"Bolsonaro has plans to pave significantly more roads in the Amazon that have otherwise been impassable much of the year, a project made feasible by international financing.
…"Of course, Hidrovias is also involved in paving B.R.-163 and other development projects in the region. Those projects, such as the paving of the highway, have additional indirect — though entirely predictable — consequences, as they spur side roads that make previously difficult-to-reach areas of the Amazon accessible for mining, logging, or further deforestation.
…"A Blackstone spokesperson noted that the fund only owns 9.3 percent* of Hidrovias. But that ignores the 55.8 percent of Hidrovias that is owned by Pátria Investimentos. On Hidrovias’s website, Pátria is described as a company ‘in partnership with Blackstone,’ and it is known in the financial industry to be a Blackstone company.”
*Pay no attention to claimed percentages of ownership.  What goes on behind ownership curtains is fluidly incestuous.  For example, from April 2019:
Blackstone Transfers 35% Stake in Brazil’s Alphaville Urbanismo to Pátria (em português)
“Blackstone transferred its 35% stake in Brazilian real estate developer Alphaville Urbanismo to its partner Pátria Investimentos. Blackstone and Pátria originally invested R$1.4b in June 2013 for a 70% stake in the company. The two firms formed a partnership in 2010 and Blackstone retains a 40% stake in Pátria.”
—–
Keep in mind, 
It’s not like this graft flows directly, or just one way.
Trump USDA is paying millions to a shady Brazilian meatpacking company under DOJ, SEC investigation
Brazil Subsidiary Hoovers Up $62 Million In Trump Trade War Aid Intended For Farmers

Every American farmer who has lost their Chinese market for soybeans – all of them – should be wondering how it was that trump “woke up” one morning with his idea of a trade war with China.  Had his close friend Schwartzman told trump the Brazilian road and terminal were ready?
There is no question that the Amazon rainforest is burning right now to open new farm land in order to meet China’s soybean market.


I wanted Blackstone to get fucked prior to this, now…now I want them to 
SUFFER.

spaceconveyor: feelingbluepolitics: feelingbluepolitics: catbirdseat4u: ➣  Go HERE for the dirt   — There’s plenty. Highest recommendati...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:

This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak just to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not...

Being Alone, Amazon, and Bad: CW CNN @CNN Follow European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes SULLDHONHS Sophia Chang Follow @sophchang "European settlers killed 56 million indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56 million. It took a long time for me to process that figure CNN @CNN European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @sophchang And to think, the world population in 1900 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5 billion I don't know what the world pop was like in 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE percentage of that. That astronomical number is definitely hard to process 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019 Follow @RadRoopa Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600 was about 570 million. They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's population. That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today. Whoa 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019 evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, this is A LOT Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others. Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse. Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time. Cuz that’s not true. Tw genocide, tw violence When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it. Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back. The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution. And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history. Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse. (tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)
Being Alone, Amazon, and Bad: CW CNN
 @CNN
 Follow
 European colonizers killed so many Native
 Americans that it changed the global climate,
 researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1C
 8:00 PM -2 Feb 2019
 924 Retweets 1,321 Likes
 SULLDHONHS

 Sophia Chang
 Follow
 @sophchang
 "European settlers killed 56 million
 indigenous people over about 100 years..." 56
 million. It took a long time for me to process
 that figure
 CNN
 @CNN
 European colonizers killed so many Native Americans that it changed
 the global climate, researchers say cnn.it/2DR3W1c
 9:45 AM -3 Feb 2019
 1,872 Retweets 2,388 Likes

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @sophchang
 And to think, the world population in 1900
 was only 1.5 billion compared to today's 7.5
 billion
 I don't know what the world pop was like in
 1500 but 56 millions would've been a HUGE
 percentage of that.
 That astronomical number is definitely hard
 to process
 9:25 PM - 3 Feb 2019

 Follow
 @RadRoopa
 Replying to @RadRoopa @sophchang
 I just looked it up and the world pop in 1600
 was about 570 million.
 They wiped out TEN PERCENT of the world's
 population.
 That's the equivalent of 750 million ppl today.
 Whoa
 9:50 PM - 3 Feb 2019
evergreennightmare:
red-stick-progressive:

aossidhboyee:


red-stick-progressive:

burdenbasket:


gahdamnpunk:
This is insane
holy fuck, this is A LOT


Also that figure is way too low, modern population estimates might be as much as twice that. There were between 25 and 40 million in central Mexico alone, almost as many people in the North Amazon, almost as many in the Andes, and almost as many in the American South. All saw 80 to 99 percent population loss in the period of 2 to 3 generations. 
The Greater Mississippi River Basin had a population somewhere between 5 and 12 million, the Eastern Woodlands had about as many, about as many in the Central Amazon, and almost as many on the American West Coast and North West Coast respectively. All of which saw 85 to 99 percent population losses in 2 or three generations after the others.
Multiple factions if European interests killed all the natives they could and destroyed all the culture and history they could. They were not limited by gender, language, religion, culture, ethnic group, nationality, geography, or time period; just every single person they could. 
That’s not even genocide, it’s apocalypse.


Why are you all omitting the well known fact that it was not purposeful genocide but simply new microbes introduced that no one knew about at that time.


Cuz that’s not true. 
Tw genocide, tw violence
When Columbus realized the pigs they brought were getting the Islanders sick he arranged to loose as many as possible ahead of them primarily into the Benne region, I believe. Cortez loaded sickened corpses into Tenochtitlan’s aqueducts, Spain deliberately targeted the priests of Mexican society first because they knew it would severely undermine the public ability to treat disease. When the post Incan city states developed a treatment for malaria, the Spanish deliberately targeted the cities producing the quinine treatment and made it illegal to sell it to non-christians. The Spanish took all the sick and forced them at sword-point to go back to their homes instead of to the sick houses or the temples throughout the new world, and forced anyone who wasn’t sick to work in the mines or the coin factories melting and pressing their cultural treasures down into Spanish coins. The English were just as bad, they started the smallpox blankets. A lot of the loss was not deliberate infections like this but it was preventable at a million different crossroads and every European culture took the opportunity to weaponize the plagues when they could. 
They knew what they were doing, just cuz they didn’t know what germs were doesn’t mean they have some accidental relationship with it. Alexander the great used biological warfare after all, so it’s not like you can pretend the concept was alien to them, they wrote about it.
Besides they did plenty of old fashioned killing too, there were Spanish conquistadors that estimated their own personal, individual killings might have numbered over the ten thousands. They were sure they’d killed more than ten million in “New Spain” alone. They crucified people they smashed babies on the rocks, they set fire to buildings they forced women and children into and cooked their meals over the burning corpses, they loosed war dogs on people. They sold children into sex slavery to be raped by disease riddled pedos back in Europe and if taking their virginity didn’t cure the sick creeps the native children would be killed or sometimes sent back.
The English were just as bad, shooting children in front of their mothers and forcing them to mop their blood with their hair. Turning human scalps into currency. Feeding babies to dogs in front of their mothers and fathers. Killing whole villages and erasing them from their maps so that historians would think God had made it empty just for the English. 
The Americans after them burned crops and drove several species of bison to extinction just to starve the plains tribes. They pushed the blankets too. On top of the wars of extermination and scalp hunting and concentration and laws defining natives as non-persons so that we’d never be protected by the Constitution.
And even if you wanna live in some dreamy fairytale where God just made a whoopsie and then there were no natives left, nobody forced them to erase our history. The Spanish burned every document they found to erase the literacy and literary tradition of the Central and South Americans. There are essentially three Aztec documents left and some excavated pottery, and some archeological inscriptions and that’s it. The single most advanced culture in math and anatomical medicine erased probably forever. Same to the Inca, the most advanced fiber and alloy engineers and economists gone forever. Nobody made them do that. Nobody forced the American colonizers to steal political technology and act like they invented democracy or sovereignty. Nobody forced them to build their cities on top of native ones and erase them from history forever. Baltimore was built on Chesapeake, which translates roughly to “city at the top of the great water” in most Algonquin tongues. My favorite example is Cumberland in Western MD, they didn’t even reshape the roads or anything, they paved the steps and walking paths natives had used for hundreds of years and now it’s almost impossible to drive cuz the streets are too narrow or steep. The culture that built them didn’t have horses. Phoenix AZ, called Phoenix cuz the settlers literally found an old city and “brought it back to life.” Did they save any history or cultural artifacts? No. Most cities on the east coast are like this. Nobody forced them to erase that history.
Colonizers are not innocent just cuz the germs did a lot of the work of the apocalypse.

(tlaxcallān had a democratic form of government)

evergreennightmare: red-stick-progressive: aossidhboyee: red-stick-progressive: burdenbasket: gahdamnpunk: This is insane holy fuck, t...

God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL INTERNATIONAL SAN DIEGO AN DIE ECON CONCON CON INTERNA INTER INTERNATIONAL 1N DIEG0 OIEGO SAN DIEGO CON OUG NO CON DIEGO CON INTERNATIONAL ONAL INTERNATIONAL IN E WATIONAL TERNATIONA SAN DIEGO CON SAN OIEG0 0 93 eONCON CO SAN OIEG N OIEG CO INTERNATIO COMICE CO OM feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was.  When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical:  When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x) Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor.  “We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x) Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior.  What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman.  Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man.  So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder?  He makes her Thor.  Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words.  What a photo. What a film. What a man. 
God, Monster, and Movies: INTERNATIONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 SAN DIEGO
 AN DIE
 ECON CONCON CON
 INTERNA
 INTER
 INTERNATIONAL
 1N DIEG0
 OIEGO
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 OUG NO
 CON
 DIEGO
 CON
 INTERNATIONAL
 ONAL
 INTERNATIONAL
 IN E WATIONAL
 TERNATIONA
 SAN DIEGO
 CON
 SAN OIEG0
 0 93
 eONCON CO
 SAN OIEG
 N OIEG
 CO
 INTERNATIO
 COMICE
 CO
 OM
feministscoundrel:
This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why. 
Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not to sign any new contract not just because of the way her character was treated (though there is that) but because Thor: The Dark World was slated to be the first Marvel movie directed by a woman, her friend (and eventual Wonder Woman director) Patty Jenkins. Portman hadn’t planned on being in The Dark World, but lept at the chance to be a part of feminist history and to be directed in what would have beenJenkin’s first film since her 2003 Oscar-winning Monster. Portman signed a new contract with Marvel. They fired Jenkins soon after. Portman was crushed because she essentially had been duped into a contract for a film that would keep her away from her young son and force her back into a one-dimensional role under yet another male director. And we all remember how awful that movie was. 
When it came time for the third Thor movie, they tried to get Portman under contract again. And she said no. Marvel decided to spin the story to make it seem like it was all their idea. At first, they went for the lame and nonsensical: 
When Marvel Studios President Kevin Feige was asked about why she wouldn’t be in the third film, and said there were “many reasons, many of which are in the film, so you will see that” continuing with “There are only a couple of scenes on Earth in this movie. The majority, 95 percent of the movie, takes place in the cosmos.” (x)
Seeing as The Dark World also took place in space, this answer didn’t have a lot of credibility. When Portman said she was “done” with the Marvel Universe, Feige got vicious in interviews, telling reporters that Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be better than Jane Foster and a better match for Thor. 
“We wanted Thor to encounter somebody that was near his equal and that his relationship with Jane may have evolved in unexpected ways in between The Dark World and Ragnarok, and we wanted to pit him against a character who was much more his equal and in many ways his superior.” (x)
Feige implies that A) Valkyrie was in Ragnorak to be a romantic interest for Thor, B) Valkyrie is better and more powerful than Jane Foster, and C) Jane Foster was always Thor’s inferior. 
What’s ridiculous is that Ragnorak had a “sorry Jane dumped you” throwaway line to explain Portman’s absence. And instead of saying that Jane and Thor broke up in interviews, a line that does not spoil literally anything about the film, Feige chose to attack Jane’s strength and capability, which would have been a very special dig at Portman. 
Do you want to know what none of this sounds like? Taika Waititi’s opinion. Waititi is a master storyteller who does not sacrifice his feminist views for laughs. You can bet that Feige’s ridiculous slams on Portman and her character Jane– disguised as “promotion” for WAITITI’S FILM– would have troubled him immensely. This is a man with a Māori father, who had to use his mother’s maiden name– Cohen– for earlier work because an indigenous last name kept him away from opportunity. This man does NOT fuck around with entertainment that gets its power off of sexism and inequality. He knows from experience just how infuriating it is when it comes to directors missing out on opportunities because they aren’t a white man. 
So how does he fix this? How does he fix the idea that Jane Foster can’t go to space, or that she’s not powerful enough for Thor, the god of thunder? 
He makes her Thor. 
Waititi saw Portman / Jane Foster’s name dragged through the mud by Kevin Feige in order to promote his movie, and when he got hired to direct again, he decided to right those wrongs. This picture means everything. He is on his knee, handing her Thor’s hammer, essentially saying, you will never have to go through that shit with me. With me, you’re a god. And the expression on her face, after Marvel attempted to break her, doesn’t need words. 
What a photo. What a film. What a man. 

feministscoundrel: This photo means a lot to me. And I’ll tell you why.  Natalie Portman, as we know, was shut out of Marvel. She chose not ...

Bitch, Friends, and Fucking: Trade Pokmon Auricular Nintendo DS and secrets with your friends! Trade you my WeaVile Cor MUnChla ays some nintendo Wi-Fi MunChlax is pretty hot.. fry again. Go to NintendoWiFi.comm to get started! Selection may vary at retail. Games, system, and headset sold separately. Pokéde tabaquis-barking: kiyotakamine: kiyotakamine: munchlax is pretty hot happy 10 year anniversary of munchlax being pretty hot Actually know what reblogging again bc the girl with the white ds knows what the FUCK is up and pink girl is either a dumbass or a scammer. In DPP (Diamond/Pearl/Platinum) sneasel shows up on five different routes, and then evolves into weavile when leveled with a razor claw at night. Razor claws aren’t hard to find either, so while there’s minimal effort involved here, weavile isn’t really special. Munchlax, though? Jesus fuck. Jesus fucking christ. Munchlax in DPP is one of the most difficult Pokémon in ANY of the games—if not the absolute most difficult. DPP has a mechanic where you could slather honey on certain trees, and six hours later a Pokémon would turn up on the tree. Several of the Pokémon you could get this way were common, but some could ONLY be obtained from honey trees. You couldn’t change the DS system’s time to speed things up, because the trees ran on their own counter—so you HAD to wait six hours for a Pokémon to show up. It gets worse. There were 21 of these honey trees in the game, and regardless of the tree’s location, and tree could summon any of the “honey tree Pokémon…” Except. Fucking. Munchlax. Only FOUR trees in the game had the potential to summon Munchlax. Which trees, you ask? Guess. No, literally, take a fucking guess—because the four trees that can summon Munchlax are decided at random based on your trainer ID and secret ID. There is NO way to determine which trees they are unless you feel like hacking into your game’s data and then doing some weird complicated math. That’s not all. You thought that was all? You thought Munchlax was a merciful god that would take pity on your tiny, pathetic body? Oh no. Not even close. Munchlax isn’t done with you yet, Munchlax is going to peel you like a fucking mango and laugh while you cry. Munchlax only has a 1% encounter rate. ONE. PERCENT. As in 1/100. So to recap—4/21 honey trees (and you don’t know which ones) have a 1% chance of summoning this little motherfucker once every six hours. That’s it. No fast tracking, no cheats, and no workarounds. Munchlax in DPP is the holy grail of hard to find Pokémon. And pinky here has the AUDACITY to offer the MUCH more easily obtainable weavile for it. Fuck that. Fuck that!!! White DS girl knows what the FUCK is up!!! In conclusion; Munchlax is pretty hot… Try again. Bitch.
Bitch, Friends, and Fucking: Trade Pokmon
 Auricular Nintendo DS
 and secrets
 with your
 friends!
 Trade you my
 WeaVile
 Cor
 MUnChla
 ays some
 nintendo
 Wi-Fi
 MunChlax
 is pretty hot..
 fry again.
 Go to
 NintendoWiFi.comm
 to get started!
 Selection may vary at retail. Games, system, and headset sold separately.
 Pokéde
tabaquis-barking:
kiyotakamine:

kiyotakamine:
munchlax is pretty hot
happy 10 year anniversary of munchlax being pretty hot

Actually know what reblogging again bc the girl with the white ds knows what the FUCK is up and pink girl is either a dumbass or a scammer. 
In DPP (Diamond/Pearl/Platinum) sneasel shows up on five different routes, and then evolves into weavile when leveled with a razor claw at night. Razor claws aren’t hard to find either, so while there’s minimal effort involved here, weavile isn’t really special.
Munchlax, though? Jesus fuck. Jesus fucking christ. Munchlax in DPP is one of the most difficult Pokémon in ANY of the games—if not the absolute most difficult. DPP has a mechanic where you could slather honey on certain trees, and six hours later a Pokémon would turn up on the tree. Several of the Pokémon you could get this way were common, but some could ONLY be obtained from honey trees. You couldn’t change the DS system’s time to speed things up, because the trees ran on their own counter—so you HAD to wait six hours for a Pokémon to show up.
It gets worse. There were 21 of these honey trees in the game, and regardless of the tree’s location, and tree could summon any of the “honey tree Pokémon…”
Except. Fucking. Munchlax.
Only FOUR trees in the game had the potential to summon Munchlax. Which trees, you ask? Guess. No, literally, take a fucking guess—because the four trees that can summon Munchlax are decided at random based on your trainer ID and secret ID. There is NO way to determine which trees they are unless you feel like hacking into your game’s data and then doing some weird complicated math.
That’s not all. You thought that was all? You thought Munchlax was a merciful god that would take pity on your tiny, pathetic body? Oh no. Not even close. Munchlax isn’t done with you yet, Munchlax is going to peel you like a fucking mango and laugh while you cry. 
Munchlax only has a 1% encounter rate. 
ONE. PERCENT. As in 1/100. 
So to recap—4/21 honey trees (and you don’t know which ones) have a 1% chance of summoning this little motherfucker once every six hours. That’s it. No fast tracking, no cheats, and no workarounds. Munchlax in DPP is the holy grail of hard to find Pokémon.
And pinky here has the AUDACITY to offer the MUCH more easily obtainable weavile for it. Fuck that. Fuck that!!! White DS girl knows what the FUCK is up!!!
In conclusion;
Munchlax is pretty hot… Try again.

Bitch.

tabaquis-barking: kiyotakamine: kiyotakamine: munchlax is pretty hot happy 10 year anniversary of munchlax being pretty hot Actually know ...

Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒 the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs. Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language. “For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip. For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert. But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)” ^^^!!!
Dogs, Drugs, and Facts: DAPASTOR YOO
uncleromeo:

feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes:


emotionsclashagainstemotions:


thatpettyblackgirl:

Because we know they value the lives of dogs over blac… nevermind 😒

the ironic part is, racism is probably why the cop was so convinced the drugs were there. the dog was doing its job, which is not reacting to drugs that don’t exist. the cop, on other hand, saw a black man, and was sure he had drugs.


Drug dogs have also been found to be ineffective in many cases, basing their reactions on the cop’s body language.
“For the purpose of this post, though, I want to focus on what’s missing from Colb’s analysis and, should the Supreme Court decide to hear the case, will almost certainly also be missing from oral arguments, the court’s ruling and most discussion of the case: that narcotics-detecting dogs and their handlers aren’t very good at discerning the presence of illegal drugs. Multiple analyses of drug-dog alerts have consistently shown alarmingly high error rates — with some close to and exceeding 50 percent. In effect, some of these K-9 units are worse than a coin flip.
For some units, the reason may be sinister — the police handler may have trained the dog to alert on command. I’ve asked dog trainers to look at videos of roadside searches in the past, and, on more than one occasion, they said they saw clear indications that a dog was being cued to alert.
But it needn’t be so malicious. While dogs are indeed capable of sniffing out illicit drugs, we’ve bred into them another overriding trait: the desire to please. Even drug dogs with conscientious handlers will read their handlers’ unintentional body language and alert accordingly. A 2010 study found that packages designed to trick handlers into thinking there were drugs inside them were much more likely to trigger false alerts than packages designed to trick the dogs. (Police-dog handlers and trainers responded to that study by refusing to cooperate with further research.) Many drug dogs, then, are not alerting to the presence of drugs, but to their handlers’ suspicions about the presence of drugs. And searches based on little more than law enforcement’s suspicions are exactly what the Fourth Amendment is supposed to prevent. (Tracking dogs that pick suspects out of “scent lineups” have had similar problems, and have led to numerous wrongful convictions.)”


^^^!!!

uncleromeo: feet-man-ahhh-sucker-of-the-toes: emotionsclashagainstemotions: thatpettyblackgirl: Because we know they value the lives o...

Children, Comfortable, and Parents: AHSIEH Should Climate Change Be Taught In School? Schools should teach about Schools should teach that Schools should not teach Don't know climate change and its impacts on our environment, economy and society anything about climate change climate change exists, but not the potential impacts 100% 6% 7% 9% 13% 17% 8% 6% 10% 10% 80% 12% 16% 17% 12% 60% 17% 81% 40% 74% 68% 66% 49% 20% 0% Overall Teachers Parents Democrats Republicans Source: NPR/lpsos polls of 1,007 U.S. adults conducted March 21-22 and 505 teachers conducted March 21-29. The credibility interval for the overall sample is 3.5 percentage points; parents, 7.3 percentage points; and teachers, 5.0 percentage points. Totals may not add up to 100 percent because of rounding. npr Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR Teachers Who Cover Climate Change Differ From Those Who Don't Teach climate change All teachers Don't teach climate change Overall: 71% I feel comfortable answering students' questions about climate change 91% 56% Overall: 52% There should be state laws in place that require teaching climate change 38% 70% Thave the resources I need to answer students' questions about climate change Overall: 51% 77% 32% Overall: 41% My students have brought up climate change in the classroom this year 14% 78% My school or school district encourages us to discuss climate change in the Overall: 37% classroom 64% 18% Overall: 29% I worry about parent complaints when it comes to teaching climate change 29% 30% Overall: 21% I would be personally uncomfortable if I had to teach about climate change 15% 27% 0% 25% 50% 75% 100% Source: NPR/Ipsos polls of 505 teachers conducted March 21-29. The credibility interval for the overall sample is 5 percentage points. npr Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR npr: More than 80% of parents in the U.S. support the teaching of climate change. And that support crosses political divides, according to the results of an exclusive new NPR/Ipsos poll: Whether they have children or not, two-thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats agree that the subject needs to be taught in school. A separate poll of teachers found that they are even more supportive, in theory — 86% agree that climate change should be taught. These polls are among the first to gauge public and teacher opinion on how climate change should be taught to the generation that in the coming years will face its intensifying consequences: children. And yet, as millions of students around the globe participate in Earth Day events on Monday, our poll also found a disconnect. Although most states have classroom standards that at least mention human-caused climate change, most teachers aren’t actually talking about climate change in their classrooms. And fewer than half of parents have discussed the issue with their children. Most Teachers Don’t Teach Climate Change; 4 In 5 Parents Wish They Did Illustration: Angela Hsieh/NPRCharts: Alyson Hurt/NPR
Children, Comfortable, and Parents: AHSIEH

 Should Climate Change Be Taught In School?
 Schools should teach about
 Schools should teach that
 Schools should not teach
 Don't know
 climate change and its impacts
 on our environment, economy
 and society
 anything about climate change
 climate change exists, but not
 the potential impacts
 100%
 6%
 7%
 9%
 13%
 17%
 8%
 6%
 10%
 10%
 80%
 12%
 16%
 17%
 12%
 60%
 17%
 81%
 40%
 74%
 68%
 66%
 49%
 20%
 0%
 Overall
 Teachers
 Parents
 Democrats
 Republicans
 Source: NPR/lpsos polls of 1,007 U.S. adults conducted March 21-22 and 505 teachers conducted March 21-29. The credibility interval for the overall
 sample is 3.5 percentage points; parents, 7.3 percentage points; and teachers, 5.0 percentage points. Totals may not add up to 100 percent because
 of rounding.
 npr
 Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR

 Teachers Who Cover Climate Change Differ From Those Who Don't
 Teach climate change
 All teachers
 Don't teach climate change
 Overall: 71%
 I feel comfortable answering students'
 questions about climate change
 91%
 56%
 Overall: 52%
 There should be state laws in place that
 require teaching climate change
 38%
 70%
 Thave the resources I need to answer
 students' questions about
 climate change
 Overall: 51%
 77%
 32%
 Overall: 41%
 My students have brought up climate
 change in the classroom this year
 14%
 78%
 My school or school district encourages
 us to discuss climate change in the
 Overall: 37%
 classroom
 64%
 18%
 Overall: 29%
 I worry about parent complaints when it
 comes to teaching climate change
 29% 30%
 Overall: 21%
 I would be personally uncomfortable if I
 had to teach about climate change
 15%
 27%
 0%
 25%
 50%
 75%
 100%
 Source: NPR/Ipsos polls of 505 teachers conducted March 21-29. The credibility interval for the overall sample is 5 percentage points.
 npr
 Credit: Alyson Hurt/NPR
npr:
More than 80% of parents in the U.S. support the teaching of climate change. And that support crosses political divides, according to the results of an exclusive new NPR/Ipsos poll: Whether they have children or not, two-thirds of Republicans and 9 in 10 Democrats agree that the subject needs to be taught in school.
A separate poll of teachers found that they are even more supportive, in theory — 86% agree that climate change should be taught.
These polls are among the first to gauge public and teacher opinion on how climate change should be taught to the generation that in the coming years will face its intensifying consequences: children.
And yet, as millions of students around the globe participate in Earth Day events on Monday, our poll also found a disconnect. Although most states have classroom standards that at least mention human-caused climate change, most teachers aren’t actually talking about climate change in their classrooms. And fewer than half of parents have discussed the issue with their children.
Most Teachers Don’t Teach Climate Change; 4 In 5 Parents Wish They Did
Illustration: Angela Hsieh/NPRCharts: Alyson Hurt/NPR

npr: More than 80% of parents in the U.S. support the teaching of climate change. And that support crosses political divides, according to t...